On Putin's Russia and NATO Imperial Expansion - An Explainer

 

Source: BBC Research

Why was NATO formed? The realpolitik answer is that in part it was mostly formed to defend member countries against possible attack by the Soviet Union. At the time of its founding and early years, Germany (West Germany occupied by the Americans and East Germany occupied by the Soviets) alongside all the countries to the east had not joined the alliance. 

All countries east of Germany were under Soviet influence in one form or another till the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The immensity of the Soviet union one might argue necessitated the existence of NATO. Of course the other unsaid reason for NATO's existence is the fact that Europeans are rather fond of killing each other as history will attest. So, all or most of Europe, including perpetual enemies France and England, being part of one military alliance is a panacea to their fondness for occasional bloodletting. 

When the Soviet leadership allowed for the reunification of Germany and allowed the Berlin wall to be pulled down, one of the promises they got from the Americans was that NATO will not even expand to East Germany much less creep towards Moscow. But of course that is exactly the opposite that happened once the Soviet Union collapsed. 

Many of the former Soviet republics like Poland were allowed to join NATO with little protest from the Kremlin. Russia, the biggest unified Republic to come out of the Soviet Union's collapse, and putative successor to the Union, was also in economic decline and corrupt oligarchic political rule in the 1990s after the collapse so they offered little  by way of opposition to Washington's NATO expansion. However, they did voice concerns regarding NATO expansionism. 

Boris Yeltsin's administration voiced objections to this expansion to the then US President Bill Clinton on numerous occasions. Clinton’s first term did not see NATO expansion until his second term. Clinton's advisors warned that Russia will feel threatened by these broken promises and creeping NATO expansionism. All to deaf ears. 

Putin in his first inaugural address: Wikipedia

When Vladimir Putin took control of the Russian federation in 2000, he took on a new tack. Instead of Russia and the West competing, he wanted them to cooperate. Instead of NATO viewing Russia as a potential adversary, Putin wanted to join NATO. He voiced his intent and interest to Clinton and other NATO leaders. Remember that Russia since Peter the Great have often sought Europeanization and European integration. So Putin, a new president of Russia in 2000, looking to modernize Russia thought it was best to join the West instead of compete against them. In short, Putin's Russia saw the West as potential good partners and not adversaries. His overtures were soundly rebuffed in Washington.

One might ask: why was Putin's overtures rebuffed? This is where we get into what I think rather than what is in the history books. But my ideas are not unfounded. Washington, the leader of NATO, to put it mildly, is a militarized state. The military industrial machine is an integral part of Washington's government. Any domestic and especially foreign policy that does not ensure that benefits are accrued to the military industrial sector will be soundly defeated in Washington. The political system is entirely captured by the military industries. 

Take for example the ever expanding military budget: some Democratic politicians, draped in progressive attire and humanitarianism, often talk about reducing the military budget. But they are kneed down by realpolitik. If they displease the military industries by voting against their interest, they will lose their jobs in Washington because their constituents will vote them out of office. It is not that American citizens are especially bloodthirsty war mongers. It is simply a matter of jobs and survival. An arms manufacturer like Raytheon (alongside other arms manufacturers) have strategically dispersed their manufacturing centers around the US in almost every state.  So, Elizabeth Warren might talk tough about cutting military spending but she'll always vote for the expansionist military budget because Raytheon has more than ten factories in her home state of Massachusetts. Voting against the military is voting to take away jobs from her constituents. And these constituents might want global peace (a rather nebulous and far away concept), but what they care about even more is feeding themselves and their families.

Given the domestic bind arms manufacturers have put American and European politicians in, accepting Russia into NATO strategically diminishes the excuses the political class in Washington like Elizabeth Warren have to justify the ever expansionist military spending and NATO. Remember, one of the biggest bogeymen for the existence of NATO is the threat from Russia. Putin's naive request to join NATO was never acceptable to the military industries in the US in particular. That is why his requests were never seriously considered. 

Russia under Putin since 2000 has seen two major NATO expansions, with the largest being in 2004 when 7 countries from the East joined. Russia mildly protested these but what really spooked them was the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest where Georgia and Ukraine were told that they "will become members of NATO". This promise was pushed by Washington against the protests of especially Germany and France. This was so to say ‘the stick that broke the camel's back’. Russia immediately told Washington that this was never going to happen. This was a red line for Russia and it considered even mentioning  it an extreme provocation. Unlike previous NATO expansion, Russia vehemently Washington shrugged off Russia's concerns as if they did not themselves threaten nuclear war over Soviet military installations in Cuba. This time Russian leaders vowed not to allow it to happen. They will wreck Georgia and Ukraine before they allowed it to join Washington’s military alliance. They did this to Georgia but the Americans still did not learn and kept pushing for Ukrainian membership of NATO. After many in the alliance dawdled on Ukrainian NATO membership, Washington started sending weapons to arm the Ukrainians (under Trump). This effectively meant Washington was changing the conditions on the ground in Ukraine and making it a de facto member with the weapons supply. Russia could not allow a Western armed hostile state a few kilometers from Moscow.

Some people have sought to downplay Russia’s concerns about NATO expansion. In fact, a friend of mine, well-meaning and all, recently said that he just can’t overlook the right and will of Ukraine in this matter—so as to suggest that Russia and the US may be ephemeral to the needs and aspirations of Ukraine as a sovereign state. This, the simple but well intentioned urge or tendency for ordinary people to fall back on we in the West’s collective reflexive bias for freedoms, was exactly what the policy makers in Washington counted on as they effectively undermined and ignored Russia’s genuine need for security guarantees from Washington’s expansionist militarism with NATO. 

Remember that Russian leaders wanted to join NATO but were rebuffed. They have seen astronomical amounts spent on Washington and its allies’ militaries. They have seen the Washington alliance use these larger and larger militaries to bully nations (many of them Russia’s allies) around the world. In fact, they have seen and heard Western leaders navel gaze at Russia’s vast natural resources. Some of Washington’s most hawkish warmongers have remarked that Russia had too much resources for one country. If you are one of the leaders in Russia and hear such statements from some of the most powerful actors in Washington and given the track record of Washington, you have every right to believe that the rapacious imperial capitalists in Washington will be coming for your head next.

What, to my mind, the analysis above shows is that Russia wanted to be part of the West but on equal terms with Washington, not as a vassal state like much of Europe. Indeed, NATO is an arm of Washington’s long military reach. Since its founding, it has mainly been America’s military escapades that NATO have embarked on. And it has mainly been Washington’s voice that run supreme regarding the direction NATO takes. So Russia joining NATO, not as a conquered vassal state whose resources and voice are subservient to Washington’s whims, would not have played to the imperialist needs of Washington. Washington is not out to cooperate with Moscow but to dominate it. 

So Russia have only two options: surrender to Washington’s dominance or fight back. It is either get surrounded and get to a position where the Kremlin can easily be destroyed if Washington commands it, or still retain a semblance of independence. 

In all this, I think Washington has overplayed its hand. A friendly and Western-integrated-Russia would have been a geostrategic win for Washington in its new competition with China. China is effectively a much bigger adversary than Russia. Obama and many policy-makers in Washington have acknowledge this in the past. That is why they have been talking about a pivot to Asia over the years. Russia is not a threat to the United States unless Washington wants it to be. And I believe as a result of domestic pressure from arms manufacturers, Washington has purposefully made Russia (a country who’s GDP is just slightly above the US state of Florida-the fourth richest US state) an enemy. And this is bad for Washington, especially in its competition with China. 

China's rise as a commercial superpower
Source: Statistica

Washington is effectively pushing Moscow into the hands of Beijing. China is the hungriest of energy consumers in the world. It never has enough of the black gold. And Moscow and Beijing have been increasing gas supplies over the years. Multiple new pipelines have been built or under construction from Russia to China. So cutting economic ties with Moscow just means China (the more geostrategically significant foe) wins. The more Russia’s economic bonds with the West weakens, the stronger it gets with China. And so strengthens China. In all this, no one (neither the civilians of the West, Russia or China) but arms manufacturers win. At some point, a growing empire overstretches itself and in that state, it is no benefit to anyone. Just as the Romans!