Interpreting the Origins of War

When it comes to Russia vs. Ukraine, strong opinions clash

It is both infuriating and heartbreaking to see what is going on in Kyiv right now, this morning. But let’s take a quick step back. Over the last 48 hours a real debate of conflicting narratives about the origins of war has emerged with two conflicting points of view:

(1) It’s our fault. We enticed Ukraine to come into NATO and sort of implicitly promised them to become a thriving western democracy, no longer under the Russian umbrella. Western nations pushed this too far, the argument goes: any sane human being could have figured out that it would eventually ruffle some feathers in Moscow. So it is our mistake, it is NATO aggression: not good. Interestingly this opinion can be found often on the right, in particular in camp Trump, the Russian influence saga is of course closely correlated with this. Tulsi Gabbard, the US Democratic congresswoman who leans populist (and also had a cup of tea with Putin buddy Bashir Assad in Syria) is another known voice of this form of analysis. The more hardcore mutations of this approach come from Russia apologists which include the “I prefer Putin to Biden” routine, yes, believe it or not there are many who see the warmonger as some sort of guardian of Christian values.

(2) It’s Putin’s fault. There are many ways to pin it on to him, but the core is that he’s frustrated over the loss of the Soviet empire and has a somewhat delusional view of his own role in history. He was a seasoned KGB operative who was basically told to hand in his card and go and do something else. It even goes as far to argue that Hitler launched WWII after Germany’s humiliation in WWI, Putin will launch WWIII following Russia humiliation after the Cold War. All these points have merit, but at its core, Putin sees Ukraine as a direct risk, any democratic success combined with growth, wealth creation and happiness in Ukraine is a forceful threat to him and, let’s not forget, Lukashenko in Belarus. Ukrainian success will animate the Russian and Belorussian masses and they may just succeed in rising up and getting rid of their dictators. This view is more found in the liberal establishment circles of our world.

If you’ve been on Twitter you will see a raging debate between these two camps, often not pretty and going to extremes. To be frank, you can veer between the two and in reality they can actually co-exist and complement each other. Western democracies have indeed done a thirty-year victory lap and probably pulled some countries a little too aggressively out of Moscow’s orbit without thinking through the consequences. But it is also abundantly clear that Putin’s Russia is the one and only aggressor and launched a war for which its leaders will hopefully in time stand trial as war criminals. Everything they have done so far would qualify as such under international law. Putin in this analysis does not care one iota about NATO or its expansion, he has as we are seeing little to fear from the treaty organization. He cares about Russia and himself, not necessarily in that order. Take your pick, or mix and match, but both theories have merit.

I would add to this that Russia and the West have a history of deep disconnects and misunderstandings. Stalin always believed that Hitler was teaming up with the US and Britain to destroy communism, a mindset that did not really help in getting the allied war effort against Nazi Germany off the ground in a very efficient way. It is baffling to see that this gap in understanding each other has continued in the post Cold War area.

Putin

To add a bit of colour to this: a lot hinges around Putin’s mental and physical state. One of The Netherlands’ top Russia experts last night on TV explained that theories over his mental and physical health have been circulating for the longest time in Russia itself. The fact he is extremely socially distant in all of his meetings may point to an unusual fear of Covid as he may already be weak and suffering from some other conditions. It could have contributed to his isolation and also possibly to his overall mental state. The fact that some of the speeches he made this week were pre-recorded also feels odd. So who is calling the shots? Putin or some of his cronies who carefully filter information to a man who is in some sort of disabled state? Do we even know?

What we do know is that this is a grave situation that may escalate further with many more deaths. If we stand back it will be a bloodbath and a prelude to more incursions and Russian violence, if we weigh in and start acting like a real NATO the same will happen with probably even more dire consequences. Deep dilemmas. Instead of looking back we should look forward and support Ukraine at every level. That said, I will always remember one of my professors who said that ‘foreign policy without a deep knowledge of history is a total monster’.