Russia is responsible for its aggression and ambitions. That so many Westerners continue to defend Russia's aggression as justifiable because European states don't want Russia to reimpose control of large swathes of democratic Europe is repulsive. And as Russia's war crimes become more evident, the impulse to excuse the Russian actions is indefensible.
His argument is BS. NATO must be capable of defending its member states. And that resistance must include:
not falling prey to narratives that seek to blame the victims of Russian threats, subversion, and aggression for said threats and aggression. Russia’s phony, self-serving narrative, like its overall information war, represents an assault on the very notion of objective truth. The integrity of the historical record is under attack, and defending it will help strengthen the foundations of European security. The false narrative peddled by Moscow and its supporters is not only factually wrong, it is morally and strategically corrosive. It is high time we defend that record and expose this deceitful narrative for the fraud it is.
Clearly, that author argues, ex-Soviet countries had no right to want protection from Russia. Any people who escaped Soviet/Russian control in Europe should have just patiently waited for the Russians to regain sufficient power to re-conquer them. That's certainly the Russian view, which rejects the sovereignty of every state that escaped Russian control.
The initial author's idiocy is stunning--calling Ukrainians afraid of Russia "Russophobic" is merely the most glaring example.
NATO did not "expand" into eastern Europe. Former Russian vassals eagerly requested membership in NATO.
Mind you, this doesn't mean that NATO has an obligation to admit everyone who applies. The alliance is for the purpose of defending its members and not saving non-member states from Russian conquest. New members should be a provider of security and not only a consumer. I'm agnostic on whether Ukraine should be a member.
Time has made admitting Ukraine to NATO more of a potential problem as Russia gained strength following its post-USSR nadir. It may have been better to admit Ukraine a decade or more ago if it was necessary to protect NATO.
On the other hand, Russia's clear willingness to lose lots of men in a long and brutal war may make membership a good idea now. And Russia's brutality has made Ukrainians--largely pro-West for a long time--far more broadly anti-Russian than they were a decade ago.
And Ukraine's willingness and ability to fight Russia shows they have the ability to be a provider of security to NATO.
It's possible that in another decade after this war ends that NATO will think it should have admitted Ukraine a decade earlier when Russia was temporarily weakened by this war.
Still, I'm conflicted on admitting Ukraine to NATO. What I'm not conflicted about is that Russia is a brutal aggressor and Ukraine does not deserve a fate of Russian control. And Russia should not control an unwilling Ukraine. I want Russia as far east as possible. An objective even more important by Russia's record in its invasion of Ukraine.
If Russia controlled Ukraine, could NATO prevent Russia from grabbing large chunks of territory from a member state bordering Russia and holding it against an eventual NATO counteroffensive?
And how many times could Russia carry out that kind of limited conquest before it added up to something significant?
Remember, no buffer will ever satisfy Russia. And it didn't matter how weak NATO was.
#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
