They say there are two sides to every story. consider both before you form an opinion, easier said than done. Look at the conflict in Ukraine, one side has dominated the global narrative, the other side has been proclaimed the villain. I'm talking about NATO and Russia. And while there's a solid case against Russia here, this story too has another side. And as I tell you the story we must dwell on and reflected, rather than Putin's aggression is being called out, and rightly so invading a sovereign country cannot be justified. But what led the world to the point of this invasion? Leaders in Moscow say they are the aggrieved party. They are the victims of NATO's eastward march, and they're only acting in self-defense. Here's why. Over the past 25 years, they have been creeping closer to the Russian border former Soviet states have become NATO members. This military alliance has technically absorbed the entire security belt of Moscow. Russia sees this expansion as a provocation it hurts the security interests and won't end well for both sides. They said the warnings were clear NATO ignored them, calling them myopia or arrogance they downplayed. Moscow's concerns kept proceeding with new rounds of expansion until things blew up in Ukraine. Did NATO push Ukraine into this war? Hello, and welcome to gravitas plus and bulky shamarpa and today I want to discuss why NATO cannot escape the blame for what's unfolding in Ukraine. First things first, what is NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization issued a security alliance between North America and Europe. It was formed after the Second World War, the goal they say was to protect democratic freedom. On the fourth of April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty has signed this treaty was simply an anti-Soviet accord aimed at countering any future aggression by the USSR. It established a new balance of power in Europe. It promised all members collective security. That's a core principle laid out in article five of the NATO Treaty, it obliges member states to protect each other in case of a war. It says an armed attack against one Ally will be an attack on all allies, meaning if one NATO nation is attacked, all NATO nations will retaliate. This allowed NATO members to pool and share their military resources. They build efficient defense capabilities. But there was more to NATO than just defense. It was an alliance of liberal countries, an engine of democratization that was supposed to promote common values and interests also push back against the rise of communism. Naturally, Moscow saw this alliance as a threat to its interests. In response, it created the Warsaw Pact in the year 1955. It was account a to NATO, the Warsaw Pact. These were the members, their goal was the same in one Warsaw Pact member is attacked all others will defend it in Russian historical memory. There were five reasons why such a pact was justified five major invasions when the West threatened Russian interests. This includes the Polish occupation of the Kremlin in early 17th century, the Swedish invasion of Russia and early 18th century, the Napoleon's invasion of the 19th century and the two wars with Germany in the 20th century. In each case, the very essence of
the Russian state was threatened suspicion and fear of the West to deep roots in Russia Moscow began perceiving NATO as a tool of American imperialism. And the assessment was not really off the mark. In 1989, the Berlin wall collapsed in 1991, the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Iron Curtain was completely demolished. Europe's regional order hinged on one question, Should Germany align itself with the US and NATO or shouldn't join the Russians to the Warsaw Pact, the US government under George HW Bush made an offer to Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev. It suggested if Germany became a NATO member, NATO would stop expanding not one inch eastwards, no new members. Today the USS it made no such promise that no such deal was ever struck. But hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from us archives indicate otherwise. Nevertheless, Moscow bought the offer. It demolished the Warsaw Pact in the hope that the West would follow suit that NATO two would be resolved. But that never happened. NATO refused to cease operations. And to add insult to injury. They kept the door for membership open. Russia saw it as a stab in the back and NATO kept pushing the data deeper. Look at this map. NATO started out with 12 founding members but since the Soviet Union fell, it has radically expanded eastwards in 1999, Poland Hungary the Czech Republic joined NATO in 2004. There was another wave of expansion seven Central and Eastern Europe. nations were made NATO members. Some of them were former Soviet republics. In 2009, Albania and Croatia joined NATO. And the most recent entries for Montenegro were North Macedonia, both situated in Russia's backyard, it does not end there. As of 2021, NATO officially recognized three more aspiring members, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine. Last we checked, NATO was also in talks in Sweden, Finland, and Serbia for membership. So to put it simply, much of eastern Europe, which once used to be part of the Soviet Union has now joined NATO, and this happened despite Russia's protests and warnings. The last reasonably friendly warning from Moscow came in the year 2007 Vladimir Putin addressed the annual Munich conference where he said and uncoating NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. This expansion represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask against whom if this expansion intended, and what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. These sentiments have been echoed by a host of American strategics. I'll give you a few examples. To 1997 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to President Bill Clinton calling America's efforts to expand NATO a policy error of historic proportions. Then we have George Kennan, the father of America's containment policy during the Cold War. He too called NATO expansion, a tragic mistake, with no reason whatsoever. The warnings went on for decades. In 2008, William J. Burns, the US Ambassador to Moscow wrote a letter to the State Department where he said that Ukrainian entry to NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite. He said that even Putin sharpest critics at home consider Ukraine's entry, a direct challenge to Russian interests. It does not end there. This is Robert M. Gates. He was the defense secretary in the Bush and Obama administrations. He wrote in his memoir that trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching. Then we have stroked Albert, a former Deputy Secretary of State he described the Russian perception in a similar way, how they consider NATO as a vestige of the Cold War, and point out that if the Warsaw Pact was disbanded, why did the West not dismantling NATO?
So several voices in the western world had warned that Russia's protests have meant and that NATO expansion could spell serious Trump. Yet successive American administrations paid no heed to these warnings, they kept widening NATO security umbrella. Now here's the thing. Trying to safeguard the sovereignty of a country is laudable indeed, but inviting a state right on Russia's border into an anti Russian alliance is provocation. Ukraine is a sovereign country and has every right to want to join the NATO. But what's in it for the NATO? Why did they push for it? The moves completely disregard the historical baggage between NATO and Russia. Many Russians were traumatized by the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In an instant they lost 1/3 of their territory, half of their population and most of their military mind. They found themselves much weaker before Western unity. They felt that an unjust settlement had been imposed on them, and it was done in their moment of maximum weakness and vulnerability. So they looked at any state leaving Russia sphere of influence as both a strategic loss and a matter of national humiliation. When we analyze why Ukraine was attacked, all of this needs to be taken into account that is justify the war. Absolutely not. Russia's actions are criminal. No two ways about it. But the West is not innocent either. They did not do what they could to avert this war. Just later
0 Comments