ISSN 2330-717X

NATO Bears Some Responsibility For The Ukraine Crisis – OpEd


With the Russians massing 100,000 troops near Ukraine, and Western media continue to vilify Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the blame for the current crisis in Eastern Europe is being laid solely at the feet of Russia. A Russian invasion of all or part of Ukraine would be horrible and unneeded aggression against a sovereign state, especially when that nation’s armed forces present little threat to Russia. However, little acknowledged in Western media and elite circles in the West, especially in the capitals of countries composing the U.S.-led NATO alliance, is a Western share of the blame for the current crisis.


To stand down his invasion threat, Putin has demanded that NATO formally renounce the addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance and troop deployments and movements in NATO countries near Russia. George W. Bush foolishly promised in 2008 that those countries would eventually be accepted into the alliance. Equally questionable was the U.S. reiteration of that promise in the summer 2021. The latter pronouncement likely triggered the Russian troop build-up on three sides of Ukraine.

Russia has long considered Ukraine to be very strategic. A significant part of the former Soviet Union’s industrial and agricultural capacity was in Ukraine, in addition to a very important Black Sea naval base in Crimea—which Russia, via armed force in 2014, returned to Russia for the first time since the 1950s. Equally important, Putin, despite being an unlikeable autocratic despot, has genuine security concerns in the approaches to western Russia, which includes the capital Moscow. Over the centuries, Russia has been invaded from the flat terrain of Eastern Europe, including what is now the Baltics, Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine. Napoleon Bonaparte of France made it all the way to Moscow before the winter caused him to retreat; the Germans in World War I menaced western Russia and forced the Russians out of the conflict; and the Russians lost 25-28 million souls stopping Adolf Hitler’s multi-pronged devastating invasion north-to-south during World War II.

However, Russia’s insecure geographical position and history of invasion was completely disregarded by NATO as it triumphantly marched eastward after the Cold War, even to Russia’s very borders. NATO’s pronouncements that great power spheres of influence are so yesterday and that the alliance’s open-door policy allows each nation to choose the countries with which it wants to associate are mere blather that deny the historical realties of international relations. The reason Putin also has threatened to send Russian troops to Cuba and Venezuela is to dramatize the U.S.’s continuing sphere of influence over an entire global hemisphere—the Western Hemisphere—since 1823 and show that the United States would not appreciate hostile troops, alliances, or nuclear weapons anywhere in this region. U.S. behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis amply demonstrated the latter scenario, and the threat of Mexico, right on the U.S. border, entering into a hostile alliance with the Kaiser’s Germany helped spur U.S. entry into World War I.

Great power spheres of influence, despite naive and self-serving internationalist rhetoric to the contrary, are far from outmoded. They are still widely recognized by international affairs experts as the harsh reality in anarchic international circumstances, and provide the best chance for peace among rival great powers, given such a harsh environment.

After the Soviet Union and its competing Warsaw Pact alliance collapsed at the end of the Cold War, instead of the triumphalist expansion to Russia’s insecure western borders, NATO should have either dissolved or admitted most European countries, including Russia. This would have eschewed its Article V military purpose and made NATO only a diplomatic problem-solving forum for Europe. The latter approach would have been like the welcoming back into Europe of France after the Napoleonic Wars (much more serious aggression that the Soviets undertook during the Cold War), which led to a century of no major European war from 1815 to the start of World War I. Instead, after the Cold War, the U.S.-led NATO chose to rub Russia’s nose in defeat, as did the allied powers vis-à-vis Kaiser’s Germany after World War I. The tragic result: the rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II.


Such humiliation of Russia by expanding a hostile alliance helped lead to a failed effort of democratization during the 1990s and the assumption of power by Putin, a nationalist with an autocratic bent, in 1999. With the renewed pronouncement of the White House in the summer of 2021 that Ukraine would still eventually be brought into NATO, Putin—to prevent this absorption—has escalated his partition of NATO into the very real possibility of an invasion of Ukraine.

NATO’s massive blunder is now evident. U.S. options now are limited to trying to cut a deal behind the scenes to assure Putin that NATO will never admit Ukraine, risking charges of appeasement if exposed, or to accelerate the export of weapons to Ukraine to wage guerrilla warfare if Putin does invade, risking escalation between the alliance and Russia in other locations.

We must be honest with ourselves: Unneeded NATO expansion helped create the present crisis.

This article was also published in The American Conservative

Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.

3 thoughts on “NATO Bears Some Responsibility For The Ukraine Crisis – OpEd

  • January 24, 2022 at 4:36 am

    Other than reading history books how much time has Ivan Eland spent in Ukraine?

  • January 24, 2022 at 9:48 am

    I agree completely with most of this analysis and used similar arguments with rabid critics on other forums. Thus, I’m going to play devils advocate and challenge some of these points, starting with language that speaks of appeasement towards Putin’s dictatorship. Ukraine became a nascent democracy with much influence and support from the US. The unfolding of the situation -Russia seizing Crimea and the pro Russia Eastern part of the country- may not have been expected, but I think CIA and US strategists are pretty pleased with their achievement. Cold War policies are still at work, even if Russia is no longer communist. Putin hasn’t embraced free market democracy and continues to show his hostility towards the US and the West in general. It is thus justified to continue the push to encircle Russia and not to give Putin any say in how Ukraine or Georgia or any other adjacent nations are run and become members of NATO or not. In fact, this is a bullies game and the US has bullied Russia to respond. In effect, if Russia doesn’t attack Ukraine, it will be seen as weak. The US has nothing to lose arming Ukranians and supportive European militias fighting on Russia’s border. A Russian triggered war will economically weaken Russia and increase dissent in the country while the US will manage its debt by selling military hardware to anyone willing to fight. I think US military strategists are looking forward to a fight that Russia can only lose. The concern, however, is that China uses that conflict to trigger their invasion of Taiwan, in which case we could be on the verge of another global war with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and a few other supporters on one side and North America, Europe, Japan and Southeast Asia on the other.

  • January 25, 2022 at 5:02 am

    Yes, NATO wanted to create chaos . The existing regime will not last for much longer. Why not let Ukraine & Russia decide what to do.


Leave a Reply to Victor B Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.