Written on 23.2.2022
For many of us, it has been a terrible shock to realize that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not only threatening to invade but actually invaded an independent country on the basis of lies and distortions. I have been to Ukraine several times over the past few years, from Kyiv to Odessa. The IIP visited Kyiv and co-organized summer schools in Odessa, and we had several meetings with the OSCE observer missions in Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine was and will remain a key focus of ours.
It is true that Ukraine has faced difficulties in its nation-building project and has had a challenging and complicated past. But it is incorrect to equate Ukraine with Russia. For example, its literary tradition shows a strong diversity of languages, including Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, German, and more. It is also untrue that Ukraine was and is governed by Nazis. While the country still has an overly strong oligarchic system that has prevented important reforms and there is a group of extreme nationalists, this pales in comparison to the leaders in the separatist regions that are supported by Putin. None of these facts give Russia the right to violate international law and brutally invade its neighbor.
Past violations of international law by the US or other countries do not justify the Russian intervention. Even if many of these Western interventions were directed against brutal dictators, such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar al-Gaddafi, we do not agree with the violation of international law by Western powers. Thus, democrats can have no sympathy for the Russian intervention.
The West’s mistakes are no justification for Russia’s intervention
Has the West’s response to Russian interests been faultless? No, as many of us have argued again and again – including on this website – the advancement of NATO was not conducted in a responsible way. US President Barack Obama was initially unwilling to draw new dividing lines across Europe before changing his mind after the Russian war in Chechnya and Russian policies in the Western Balkans. NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit decision to principally agree on future NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia was particularly unwise. France and Germany blocked an even stronger commitment proposed by US President George W. Bush, but even the weaker formulation was seen in Moscow as a provocation.
In all likelihood, it would have been wiser to create a neutral zone between Russia and NATO and invite Russia in the immediate years after the breakdown of the Soviet Union to cooperate on building a common European security architecture. However, most of the countries released from Russian domination wanted protection and looked to join NATO as soon as possible. NATO was also happy to find a new purpose and a prolonged life. In addition, Russia’s increasing implementation of policies reminiscent of the darkest hour of its history strengthened the desire of these countries to achieve the protective shield of NATO.
Interestingly, the issue of NATO -- possibly (!) -- approaching the Russian border was only one reason for the initial rise in Russian aggression. Russian ideologues and Putin himself increasingly argued that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. According to this view, it is a fascist gang that is leading the Ukrainian people away from Russia. Given this argument, it cannot be taken for granted that a neutral Ukraine would have been spared Russian aggression. Russia has altogether not respected the clear results of the referendum that led to the independence of Ukraine. Even in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, more than 80% voted for independence, while in Crimea it was still 54%.
Putin’s long term strategy of power
Putin’s domestic and international policies have had and continue to have the aim of suppressing democratic movements, assassinating critics both at home and abroad, and supporting brutal dictators, from Assad in Syria to Lukashenka in Belarus. He also protects the worst of his own governors, such as Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya. Putin follows a steady and continuous path of strengthening his power and showing the West and his own people who the “master of the universe” is. This universe is his own or, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel once said to Obama, “He is living in his own world, out of touch with reality.”
As Kati Marton shows in her excellent biography The Chancellor, Merkel was one of the few politicians who was able to speak with Putin and win some respect. In the end, however, even she could not change his strategy of Russian expansion and challenging Western democracy. In a recent discussion organized by the European Council on Foreign Relations, Ivan Krastev underlined that Russia’s invasion is a fundamental challenge to the West and its global role. And this – aside from the tragedy of Ukrainian as well as Russian victims of the war -- is the biggest challenge the West currently faces.
The West needs a rational strategy with clear aims
It will not be easy to deal with this challenge. China is certainly not a partner for the West in this fight. The US and the EU should be happy if they can simply convince China not to support Russia in its imperialist aspirations. The same is true for Turkey, which cannot be happy about the strengthened role of Russia in the Black Sea region. Convincing these countries to stay neutral or even to support the West in its measures against Russia will be very difficult. First and foremost, this will require closing ranks inside the West and presenting a clear EU strategy. Countries like Poland that are eager to get Western support should recognize how important it is to accept EU rules and laws. Countries like Hungary should stop playing their own games in the Western Balkans by supporting autocratic regimes with close ties to Russia.
This is not the time to design in detail how the West can counter Russia’s or, more specifically, Putin’s anti-democratic and anti-Western strategy. Some await a regime change, but the oppressive system and disinformation activities built up in Russia with significant overflow into Western countries make it very unlikely that Putin will be forced to resign. A new Cold War is here, beyond any doubt. There is no “end of history” – but perhaps the world has just concluded a short break in history. A further problem is that Putin acts more and more irrationally, even more so than the communist dictators. To deal with such leaders is never easy.
There is always the danger that this irrationality will spill over and infect Western leaders. But as difficult as it is, the West must stay rational. It must always consider the “collateral damage” of sanctions on its own people and economies. To criticize that approach, as some media do, is itself irrational. The West needs unity and the strong support of its own public. In this respect, it is also necessary to look for alternatives for important resources like gas. Otherwise, public support may soon decrease dramatically.
The West must concentrate its activities on this single issue and not be diverted by individual interests, such as recognizing Taiwan in order to provoke China. Full attention must be directed to Russia’s aggression as well as possible accompanying actions concerning Georgia, Moldova, and the Western Balkans.
The IIP will continue to organize discussions and seminars on Ukraine. We will try to invite as many different voices as possible. In the past, Russian experts have also been invited to be part of our events. We will try to continue this strategy. We must not interrupt a fruitful dialogue across borders and political systems. If we criticize Putin about living in his own world, we should not fall into the same trap. Having firm convictions must not prevent readiness for dialogue. Peace is too important to avoid difficult discussions and intellectual confrontations.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.