NATO had just expelled eight Russian diplomats for espionage activities but provided no public evidence or details on these serious allegations. But this was just the immediate event that provided the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
Post-Cold War Triumphalism
The problem started with the triumphalist attitude that eventually prevailed in Washington after the end of the Cold War. President Ronald Reagan intentionally took the approach during negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that ended the Cold War that doing so would be in the interests of both countries. It was characterized at the time as a negotiated settlement that benefited all parties involved and not a defeat. Reagan's successor George H.W. Bush adopted the same attitude until it was time to campaign for his reelection, during which he bragged that the U.S. had won the Cold War.
In the 1990's, the Clinton administration, encouraged by foreign policy hawks, greedy defense contractors and domestic reelection politics, expanded NATO to former Warsaw Pact countries Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This was a violation of verbal assurances given by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, along with other western government officials, during 1991 negotiations with Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward." This assurance was made in order to get Gorbachev to accept a unified Germany in NATO given the deep historical memory of the Germans having invaded Russia twice in the 20th century, the second time resulting in 27 million deaths and destruction of a third of the Soviet Union. But NATO didn't stop there and expanded by seven more countries, right up to Russia's border, by 2004.
It's also worth mentioning that the NATO-Russia relationship as it was formulated in 2002 in the form of the NATO-Russia Council was never intended to be a vehicle that would allow Russia to be treated as a respected peer. Instead it was largely a pretense as admitted by those who came up with the idea, which included then British Prime Minister Tony Blair. As one of Blair's aides later stated, "even if they [Russia] weren't really a superpower anymore, you had to pretend they were." Russia had a permanent ambassador to NATO and could theoretically participate in NATO discussions, but Moscow complained for years that they were often excluded from informal discussions prior to official meetings and would consequently face a coordinated bloc.
That same year, under George W. Bush, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty - a move Russia viewed as a threat to strategic nuclear stability and a desire by the U.S. to pursue a first strike advantage. Likewise, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2018, a decision made by president Donald Trump whom we were supposed to believe was a Russian puppet. Problems with the INF Treaty had, however, been building for some time and it wasn't just accusations of Moscow violating the treaty with a certain type of cruise missile. Starting in 2009, the Obama administration approved the installation of a missile defense system in Romania and then Poland that was a violation of the INF Treaty and was a serious concern to Russia.
In 2014, Washington played a key role in the Ukraine coup when then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland was caught on a phone call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine discussing how to facilitate the removal of the corrupt but democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovich and install their favored candidate as Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. It's very interesting that their desired turn of events actually came to pass. This was clearly either a provocation or represented profound ignorance of the region by the U.S. State Department. The latter is a very generous interpretation given the fact that Nuland - a Neoconservative ideologue - was taking the lead on Ukraine.
Washington and NATO Double Down
In the aftermath of Russia's severing of ties, the U.S. and NATO have doubled down on provocative activities rather than used the rupture as an opportunity for self-examination or an attempt to come up with fresh ideas to slow the spiraling relationship between major nuclear powers. Within the same week, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told audiences on his whirlwind trip to Georgia, Ukraine and Romania that the Black Sea was a U.S./NATO military interest. The U.S. subsequently sent two warships into the Black Sea early this month and members of Congress are now urging the Biden administration to ramp up military support to the area. Austin also stated that Russia should have nothing to say about whether Ukraine joins NATO or not. Within days of Austin's trip, a conference of NATO defense ministers in Brussels revealed a new "master plan to contain Russia."
As I have argued before, it would not be in Russia's interests to attack the Baltic countries and it would not pass any remotely rational cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, military action by Russia in the post-Soviet era has been reactive in nature rather than aggressive. Its action in Georgia in 2008 was a response to a military attack by Tbilisi on Russian troops in South Ossetia according to the 2009 EU Fact Finding Mission report, and the annexation of Crimea was a unique situation that resulted from Moscow's genuine perception of a serious national security threat. NATO officials even admit that they do not think any attack is planned by Moscow on its neighbors. As Reuters has reported: "Officials stress that they do not believe any Russian attack is imminent."
But this didn't stop the German defense minister from pouring fuel on the fire by stating in an interview around the same time that NATO should make clear that it is willing to use military force, including nuclear weapons, to deter Russia from attacking not just members of the alliance but partners. Needless to say, this was viewed as very disturbing by Moscow.
It would appear that from Russia's perspective there has been little to no benefit from the arrangement it had been working under with NATO for the past two decades. The U.S., which effectively controls NATO, still seems to be suffering from its bout of post- Cold War triumphalism and continues to think that it can treat Russia as a bugaboo to justify bloated military budgets and as a whipping boy diversion from its domestic political problems. At the same time, U.S./NATO not only expects Russia to act as though it has no national security interests of its own to protect but is also obligated to provide diplomatic cooperation with the west when convenient, such as with Afghanistan and negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal. It's no surprise that Russia finally felt it was time to put its foot down.
Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations, available at Amazon. Her writing has appeared in Consortium News, RT, OpEd News, The Globe Post, Antiwar.com, The New York Journal of Books, and Dissident Voice.
Reader Comments
On the other hand the peasant in general prefer to be warm and when too many get cold then they sort of have a a bad disposition and such - right Chester?
So honestly, your ideas or your suggestions seem sort of 20th century to me and really, the peasant prefer to be warm. So a bunch of cold peasants after a bunch of elite lies and deceptions spells trouble for the elites and their policies, and some would be advised to let some Russian gas come into Europe to heat the place up just a bit for the sake of the peasants.
If the so-called "elites" can't figure this out, then I reckon they are already falling into the big-time drain of ignominy that will ultimately suck them in for sure and I can prove this if you want me to. If you do, just let me know, and I will send you the proof.
BK
As Sting so eloquently sang," There's no such thing as a winnable war", Putin knows it but Russia out weighs the USA in firepower and why waste your time trying to talk to those who are not prepared to listen.
War mongerers liken to the US military are liken to get their arse kicked, not a case of if but when.
Your accounting of failure on the US side is accurate, it seems a long time ago when the USA were seen as a stabilising force amongst nation's, one can only assume that there's no money to be made out of peace.
The Russian won't suffer if those in Europe - which Russia happens to be in part off - are cold. I mean if it is just one year of being cold that ain't a big deal is it? I'll answer that effing question - not relatively speaking.
Those in Europe probably ought do some serious thinking about mandates and such cause who likes to be cold? Moreover, and more importantly after all this time, who wants to be a 2nd class citizen?
Take your jab and shove it
BK
We (Europe and the UK) have relied on Russia to supply us gas, yet the authorities don't think ๐ค of the consequences of their actions on the domestic playing field, when deciding to pick a fight when Winter is on its way.
There's absolutely no sense in their actions.
So Russia walks away from the table, good for them, leaving Joe public wondering what are our elected leaders up to, from where I'm sitting, their picking a unnecessary fight we all will lose.
BK
(no harm in kabuki, but how much do we have to put up with I ask - how much?)
When the wind stops blowing as it does, wind turbines stop too, when it's cloudy, as it is most of the time in the UK, solar panels fail to produce electricity.
When the UK's nuclear capacity has aged and past its sell by date, it cannot be relied upon to meet the demand for electricity.
The UK power industry got its fingers burnt recently, when they couldn't afford to gas from abroad they had to quickly put 5 coal powered power stations back on line to meet demand and our government decides picking fights are more important.
The bottom line. NATO will now need a crystal ball to look into if it needs to know what the Russians are up to, as for Russia, its got more important things to worry about.
As for me, I'm local, so I'm focused on local things.
From a local perspective, the citizens I think are the ones most entrusted with knowing what is in the interest of the local community. So really, this is basic stuff and it ain't tricky.
Throw off the blanket of propaganda and so many options for making things better open up like a flower. It is basically the opposite of the drain of ignominy if you get my drift.
Peace is easy,
BK
Yes, it is time to think a bit more locally. I agree.
I'd say I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't really, even though I do agree, I just think there could have been relations there of value, but I think they have been squandered, and so yes, I agree.
Time for a fresh start - don't you think?
BK
1. Where are the bases? Lets abandon them is what I think cause they been a waste of currency and good faith.
2. What is the disposition associated with each of the bases when the troops our brought home with dignity and such? - Give em back to the home country I reckon.
3. Well maybe left-over NATO can figure that out - or maybe not.
4. Meanwhile, you might want to get you some gas from Russia if you want to keep you peasants pleased - but maybe you don't want that.
5. If you don't care about the peasants, you must think you are elite, and if so, seems a lesson is on the way - or maybe, tis already been delivered - who knows.
Who knows - not I.
BK
I'm just glad Russian finally pulled the pin, stopped trying to play nice with assholes and decided to get on with its own constructive business.