A year has gone by since Russia invaded Ukraine and silence still surrounds the origins of the conflict. Few in the government or media have addressed fully the root causes of the invasion. The causal story begins and ends with Putin. This might prove useful if the goal is prolonged war, but it falls short of the truth.
The point has been made before and bears repeating. Foreign policy experts warned for years that NATO expansion eastward would be provocative and could lead to war with Russia. The warnings go back to Boris Yeltsin in 1995 and George Kennan in 1998. The warnings turned starker in 2008 when President George W. Bush proposed making Ukraine a member of NATO. Many in the West, including key U.S. officials, viewed his proposal as especially provocative. Here is current CIA Director William Burns in 2008: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)….I have yet to find anyone [in Russia] who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Here is former Defense Secretary Robert Gates: “Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching ... an especially monumental provocation.” Here is well-known Russia expert Fiona Hill: “We warned [Bush] that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke preemptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded.” One could go on almost endlessly with such remarks. Here is the Rand Corporation in 2019: “Providing more U.S. military equipment and advice could lead Russia to increase its direct involvement in the [Ukraine] conflict ... Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.”
The warnings had little impact. In 2020, NATO granted Ukraine “enhanced opportunities partner” status, further integrating Ukraine into that organization. When Russia proposed a diplomatic framework for easing tensions in the region in December 2021, the aim being an end to NATO expansion eastward, the U.S. refused to negotiate.
This is what I don’t get. After repeated warnings by Western officials that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke a military response on Russia’s part, Russia, as predicted, responds militarily. Yet when Russia responds, when the invasion occurred last year, the lead word becomes “unprovoked.” Government and media insist that NATO moves on Ukraine had no role in prompting an invasion even though experts predicted precisely that result. The causal link between NATO enlargement and Russian belligerence — admitted by U.S. officials — vanishes. At State Department press briefings over the past year, spokesperson Ned Price often labeled Russia’s invasion “unprovoked, unjustified and lawless.” It is certainly true that the invasion was unjustified and lawless, a criminal act of the worst sort. But to say the invasion was unprovoked, that NATO expansion into Ukraine had no role in prompting Russia’s invasion, is highly misleading given the documentary record.
The U.S. media — especially the liberal media — seems to have lost its voice. It refuses to provide the broader context for the Ukraine War, both the underlying cause of the invasion and in turn what can be done to end the war. With the causal picture blurred, military force stands out as the only viable option. The American people have little to fall back on other than an evil Putin bent on conquering territory and stamping out democracy. I am reminded of the bogus “domino theory” used to justify U.S. war-making in Vietnam or the silly notion that bin Laden attacked us because he hated our freedoms.
One more thing. On Feb. 8, Seymour Hersh published on Substack a report titled “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline.” His report finds the Biden administration directly responsible for blowing up the gas pipeline between Russia and Germany last September. Ordinarily, one would dismiss the charge as just another tedious conspiracy theory. Hersh, though, is arguably this country’s greatest living journalist. He has won a Pulitzer Prize and five George Polk Awards for exposing, among other things, the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib. His findings are detailed and there is no question that the U.S. had motive. Of course, Hersh’s reporting needs corroboration. Let’s hope the mainstream media in this country has the courage to explore further, both the Nord Stream 2 sabotage and the full story behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Hank Davis is a resident of Brooklin. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and has taught the subject for the University of Maine. Sources for this op-ed are available at hdavis@midmaine.com.
Hank Davis is a resident of Brooklin. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and has taught the subject for the University of Maine. Sources for this op-ed are available at hdavis@midmaine.com.
