18
13.02.15 13:01 John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs Page 1 of 18 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault Home International Editions Digital Newsstand Job Board Account Management RSS Newsletters SEARCH Login Register (1) My Cart FROM OUR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 ISSUE Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault 34 min 45 secs ccording to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long- standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine. But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin Part of The Best of Print in 2014 By John J. Mearsheimer A man takes a picture as he stands on a Soviet-style star re-touched with blue paint so that it resembles the Ukrainian flag, Moscow, August 20, 2014. (Maxim Shemetov / Courtesy Reuters) q +ADD TO PLAYLIST BUY AUDIO VERSION A

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault - acamedia · John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs 13.02.15 13:01

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 1 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

Home International Editions Digital Newsstand Job Board Account Management RSS Newsletters

SEARCH

Login Register (1) My Cart

F R O M O U R S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 4 I S S U E

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault34 min 45 secs

ccording tothe prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russianaggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest ofUkraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of UkrainianPresident Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision toorder Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of theresponsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the centralelement of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West.At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracymovement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were criticalelements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATOenlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by whiletheir strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegaloverthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s FaultThe Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

Part of The Best of Print in 2014

By John J. Mearsheimer

A man takes a picture as he stands on a Soviet-style star re-touched with blue paint so that it resembles the Ukrainian flag, Moscow, August 20, 2014. (MaximShemetov / Courtesy Reuters)

q+ADD TO PLAYLISTBUY AUDIO VERSION A

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 2 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he fearedwould host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its effortsto join the West.

Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving intoRussia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphaticallyand repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events onlybecause they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that thelogic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be keptwhole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economicinterdependence, and democracy.

But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remainsrelevant -- and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blunderedin attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that theconsequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue thismisbegotten policy.

U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into aWestern stronghold on Russia’s border.

THE WESTERN AFFRONT

As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe andNATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. Butthey and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed thatWestern diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thoughtotherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand.

The first round of enlargement took place in 1999 and brought in the Czech Republic, Hungary,and Poland. The second occurred in 2004; it included Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Moscow complained bitterly from the start. During NATO’s1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs, for example, Russian President Boris Yeltsinsaid, “This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the RussianFederation’s borders. ... The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe.” But theRussians were too weak at the time to derail NATO’s eastward movement -- which, at any rate,did not look so threatening, since none of the new members shared a border with Russia, save forthe tiny Baltic countries.

Then NATO began looking further east. At its April 2008 summit in Bucharest, the allianceconsidered admitting Georgia and Ukraine. The George W. Bush administration supporteddoing so, but France and Germany opposed the move for fear that it would unduly antagonizeRussia. In the end, NATO’s members reached a compromise: the alliance did not begin theformal process leading to membership, but it issued a statement endorsing the aspirations ofGeorgia and Ukraine and boldly declaring, “These countries will become members of NATO.”

Moscow, however, did not see the outcome as much of a compromise. Alexander Grushko, thenRussia’s deputy foreign minister, said, “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is ahuge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.”Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a “direct threat”to Russia. One Russian newspaper reported that Putin, while speaking with Bush, “verytransparently hinted that if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist.”

Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts aboutPutin’s determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO. Georgian PresidentMikheil Saakashvili, who was deeply committed to bringing his country into NATO, had decidedin the summer of 2008 to reincorporate two separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. ButPutin sought to keep Georgia weak and divided -- and out of NATO. After fighting broke outbetween the Georgian government and South Ossetian separatists, Russian forces took controlof Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow had made its point. Yet despite this clear warning,NATO never publicly abandoned its goal of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance.And NATO expansion continued marching forward, with Albania and Croatia becomingmembers in 2009.

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 3 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

The EU, too, has been marching eastward. In May 2008, it unveiled its Eastern Partnershipinitiative, a program to foster prosperity in such countries as Ukraine and integrate them intothe EU economy. Not surprisingly, Russian leaders view the plan as hostile to their country’sinterests. This past February, before Yanukovych was forced from office, Russian ForeignMinister Sergey Lavrov accused the EU of trying to create a “sphere of influence” in easternEurope. In the eyes of Russian leaders, EU expansion is a stalking horse for NATO expansion.

The West’s final tool for peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been its efforts to spread Westernvalues and promote democracy in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, a plan that often entailsfunding pro-Western individuals and organizations. Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretaryof state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United Stateshad invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves.” Aspart of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled the National Endowment forDemocracy. The nonprofit foundation has funded more than 60 projects aimed at promotingcivil society in Ukraine, and the NED’s president, Carl Gershman, has called that country “thebiggest prize.” After Yanukovych won Ukraine’s presidential election in February 2010, theNED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support theopposition and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions.

When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that theircountry might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershmanwrote in The Washington Post, “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of theideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.” He added: “Russians, too, face a choice,and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

CREATING A CRISIS

Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military allianceand tried to include Canada and Mexico.

The West’s triple package of policies -- NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracypromotion -- added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, whenYanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided toaccept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead. That decision gave rise to antigovernmentdemonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February had ledto the deaths of some one hundred protesters. Western emissaries hurriedly flew to Kiev toresolve the crisis. On February 21, the government and the opposition struck a deal that allowedYanukovych to stay in power until new elections were held. But it immediately fell apart, andYanukovych fled to Russia the next day. The new government in Kiev was pro-Western andanti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately belabeled neofascists.

Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear thatWashington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated inantigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.” As a leakedtelephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainianpolitician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych’s ouster.

For Putin, the time to act against Ukraine and the West had arrived. Shortly after February 22,he ordered Russian forces to take Crimea from Ukraine, and soon after that, he incorporated itinto Russia. The task proved relatively easy, thanks to the thousands of Russian troops alreadystationed at a naval base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Crimea also made for an easy targetsince ethnic Russians compose roughly 60 percent of its population. Most of them wanted out ofUkraine.

Next, Putin put massive pressure on the new government in Kiev to discourage it from sidingwith the West against Moscow, making it clear that he would wreck Ukraine as a functioningstate before he would allow it to become a Western stronghold on Russia’s doorstep. Toward thatend, he has provided advisers, arms, and diplomatic support to the Russian separatists in easternUkraine, who are pushing the country toward civil war. He has massed a large army on theUkrainian border, threatening to invade if the government cracks down on the rebels. And hehas sharply raised the price of the natural gas Russia sells to Ukraine and demanded payment for

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 4 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

past exports. Putin is playing hardball.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that NapoleonicFrance, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraineserves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader wouldtolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine.Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government therethat was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This isGeopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory.After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forcesanywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage inWashington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada andMexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on manyoccasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, alongwith any effort to turn those countries against Russia -- a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.

Officials from the United States and its European allies contend that they tried hard to assuageRussian fears and that Moscow should understand that NATO has no designs on Russia. Inaddition to continually denying that its expansion was aimed at containing Russia, the alliancehas never permanently deployed military forces in its new member states. In 2002, it evencreated a body called the NATO-Russia Council in an effort to foster cooperation. To furthermollify Russia, the United States announced in 2009 that it would deploy its new missile defensesystem on warships in European waters, at least initially, rather than on Czech or Polishterritory. But none of these measures worked; the Russians remained steadfastly opposed toNATO enlargement, especially into Georgia and Ukraine. And it is the Russians, not the West,who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.

To understand why the West, especially the United States, failed to understand that its Ukrainepolicy was laying the groundwork for a major clash with Russia, one must go back to the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration began advocating NATO expansion. Pundits advanced avariety of arguments for and against enlargement, but there was no consensus on what to do.Most eastern European émigrés in the United States and their relatives, for example, stronglysupported expansion, because they wanted NATO to protect such countries as Hungary andPoland. A few realists also favored the policy because they thought Russia still needed to becontained.

But most realists opposed expansion, in the belief that a declining great power with an agingpopulation and a one-dimensional economy did not in fact need to be contained. And theyfeared that enlargement would only give Moscow an incentive to cause trouble in easternEurope. The U.S. diplomat George Kennan articulated this perspective in a 1998 interview,shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion. “I think the Russianswill gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” he said. “I think it is a tragicmistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else.”

The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernizeUkraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer.

Most liberals, on the other hand, favored enlargement, including many key members of theClinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentallytransformed international politics and that a new, postnational order had replaced the realistlogic that used to govern Europe. The United States was not only the “indispensable nation,” asSecretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus unlikely tobe viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look likewestern Europe.

And so the United States and its allies sought to promote democracy in the countries of easternEurope, increase economic interdependence among them, and embed them in internationalinstitutions. Having won the debate in the United States, liberals had little difficulty convincing

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 5 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

their European allies to support NATO enlargement. After all, given the EU’s pastachievements, Europeans were even more wedded than Americans to the idea that geopolitics nolonger mattered and that an all-inclusive liberal order could maintain peace in Europe.

So thoroughly did liberals come to dominate the discourse about European security during thefirst decade of this century that even as the alliance adopted an open-door policy of growth,NATO expansion faced little realist opposition. The liberal worldview is now accepted dogmaamong U.S. officials. In March, for example, President Barack Obama delivered a speech aboutUkraine in which he talked repeatedly about “the ideals” that motivate Western policy and howthose ideals “have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power.” Secretaryof State John Kerry’s response to the Crimea crisis reflected this same perspective: “You justdon’t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading anothercountry on completely trumped-up pretext.”

In essence, the two sides have been operating with different playbooks: Putin and hiscompatriots have been thinking and acting according to realist dictates, whereas their Westerncounterparts have been adhering to liberal ideas about international politics. The result is that theUnited States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.

BLAME GAME

In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis,after which the proponents of expansion would “say that we always told you that is how theRussians are.” As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in theUkraine predicament. In March, according to The New York Times, German Chancellor AngelaMerkel implied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was “in another world.”Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he ismentally unbalanced. On the contrary: he is a first-class strategist who should be feared andrespected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy.

Other analysts allege, more plausibly, that Putin regrets the demise of the Soviet Union and isdetermined to reverse it by expanding Russia’s borders. According to this interpretation, Putin,having taken Crimea, is now testing the waters to see if the time is right to conquer Ukraine, orat least its eastern part, and he will eventually behave aggressively toward other countries inRussia’s neighborhood. For some in this camp, Putin represents a modern-day Adolf Hitler, andstriking any kind of deal with him would repeat the mistake of Munich. Thus, NATO mustadmit Georgia and Ukraine to contain Russia before it dominates its neighbors and threatenswestern Europe.

This argument falls apart on close inspection. If Putin were committed to creating a greaterRussia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there isvirtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory inUkraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who supported NATO expansion were notdoing so out of a fear that Russia was about to use military force. Putin’s actions in Crimea tookthem by complete surprise and appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovych’souster. Right afterward, even Putin said he opposed Crimean secession, before quickly changinghis mind.

Besides, even if it wanted to, Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex easternUkraine, much less the entire country. Roughly 15 million people -- one-third of Ukraine’spopulation -- live between the Dnieper River, which bisects the country, and the Russian border.An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain part of Ukraine and would surelyresist a Russian occupation. Furthermore, Russia’s mediocre army, which shows few signs ofturning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all of Ukraine. Moscowis also poorly positioned to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer evenmore in the face of the resulting sanctions.

But even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it wouldstill probably prove unable to successfully occupy Ukraine. One need only consider the Sovietand U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russianexperience in Chechnya to be reminded that military occupations usually end badly. Putin surelyunderstands that trying to subdue Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His responseto events there has been defensive, not offensive.

A WAY OUT

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 6 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

Given that most Western leaders continue to deny that Putin’s behavior might be motivated bylegitimate security concerns, it is unsurprising that they have tried to modify it by doubling downon their existing policies and have punished Russia to deter further aggression. Although Kerryhas maintained that “all options are on the table,” neither the United States nor its NATO alliesare prepared to use force to defend Ukraine. The West is relying instead on economic sanctionsto coerce Russia into ending its support for the insurrection in eastern Ukraine. In July, theUnited States and the EU put in place their third round of limited sanctions, targeting mainlyhigh-level individuals closely tied to the Russian government and some high-profile banks,energy companies, and defense firms. They also threatened to unleash another, tougher round ofsanctions, aimed at whole sectors of the Russian economy.

Such measures will have little effect. Harsh sanctions are likely off the table anyway; westernEuropean countries, especially Germany, have resisted imposing them for fear that Russia mightretaliate and cause serious economic damage within the EU. But even if the United States couldconvince its allies to enact tough measures, Putin would probably not alter his decision-making.History shows that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment in order to protecttheir core strategic interests. There is no reason to think Russia represents an exception to thisrule.

Western leaders have also clung to the provocative policies that precipitated the crisis in the firstplace. In April, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden met with Ukrainian legislators and told them,“This is a second opportunity to make good on the original promise made by the OrangeRevolution.” John Brennan, the director of the CIA, did not help things when, that same month,he visited Kiev on a trip the White House said was aimed at improving security cooperation withthe Ukrainian government.

The EU, meanwhile, has continued to push its Eastern Partnership. In March, José ManuelBarroso, the president of the European Commission, summarized EU thinking on Ukraine,saying, “We have a debt, a duty of solidarity with that country, and we will work to have them asclose as possible to us.” And sure enough, on June 27, the EU and Ukraine signed the economicagreement that Yanukovych had fatefully rejected seven months earlier. Also in June, at ameeting of NATO members’ foreign ministers, it was agreed that the alliance would remainopen to new members, although the foreign ministers refrained from mentioning Ukraine byname. “No third country has a veto over NATO enlargement,” announced Anders FoghRasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general. The foreign ministers also agreed to support variousmeasures to improve Ukraine’s military capabilities in such areas as command and control,logistics, and cyberdefense. Russian leaders have naturally recoiled at these actions; the West’sresponse to the crisis will only make a bad situation worse.

There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however -- although it would require the West tothink about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies shouldabandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer betweenNATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders shouldacknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russianregime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls inneither the Russian nor the Western camp.

To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO’s expansioninto both Georgia and Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan forUkraine funded jointly by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, Russia, and the UnitedStates -- a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous andstable Ukraine on its western flank. And the West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside Ukraine. It is time to put an end to Western support for anotherOrange Revolution. Nevertheless, U.S. and European leaders should encourage Ukraine torespect minority rights, especially the language rights of its Russian speakers.

Some may argue that changing policy toward Ukraine at this late date would seriously damageU.S. credibility around the world. There would undoubtedly be certain costs, but the costs ofcontinuing a misguided strategy would be much greater. Furthermore, other countries are likelyto respect a state that learns from its mistakes and ultimately devises a policy that dealseffectively with the problem at hand. That option is clearly open to the United States.

One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with andthe Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 7 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

REVIEW ESSAY, MAR/APR 2010

FrostbittenLawrence D. Freedman

As the years pass, the ColdWar increasingly appears as anundifferentiated chunk ofhistory that stretched acrosstime and space, with a vast castof characters and occasionalmoments of drama. It ispresented as a curiousconcatenation of summits andnegotiations, alliances andclients, spies ...

ESSAY, MAY/JUN 1998

Russia's Phony CapitalismGrigory Yavlinsky

OLIGARCHY ORDEMOCRACY? Russia faces awatershed decision. The vitalquestion for Russia is whetherit will become a quasi-democratic oligarchy withcorporatist, criminalcharacteristics or take the moredifficult, painful road tobecoming a normal, Western-style democracy with a marketeconomy. ...

SNAPSHOT, MARCH 24, 2014

Monitoring Moscow'sVictoryElisabeth Brocking

In an apparently grudgingconcession to Westerndemands, Russia agreed onMarch 21 to a deployment ofinternational monitors from theOrganization for Security andCooperation in Europe(OSCE) to Ukraine (notincluding Crimea). The UnitedStates and Europe have longadvocated such a mission. ...

ON THIS TOPIC

Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes rightwhen great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largelymeaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right toform a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainlydid not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is inUkraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its morepowerful neighbor.

Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition tojoin the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have theright to reject these requests. There is no reason that the West has to accommodate Ukraine if itis bent on pursuing a wrong-headed foreign policy, especially if its defense is not a vital interest.Indulging the dreams of some Ukrainians is not worth the animosity and strife it will cause,especially for the Ukrainian people.

Of course, some analysts might concede that NATO handled relations with Ukraine poorly andyet still maintain that Russia constitutes an enemy that will only grow more formidable over time-- and that the West therefore has no choice but to continue its present policy. But this viewpointis badly mistaken. Russia is a declining power, and it will only get weaker with time. Even ifRussia were a rising power, moreover, it would still make no sense to incorporate Ukraine intoNATO. The reason is simple: the United States and its European allies do not consider Ukraineto be a core strategic interest, as their unwillingness to use military force to come to its aid hasproved. It would therefore be the height of folly to create a new NATO member that the othermembers have no intention of defending. NATO has expanded in the past because liberalsassumed the alliance would never have to honor its new security guarantees, but Russia’s recentpower play shows that granting Ukraine NATO membership could put Russia and the West ona collision course.

Sticking with the current policy would also complicate Western relations with Moscow on otherissues. The United States needs Russia’s assistance to withdraw U.S. equipment fromAfghanistan through Russian territory, reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, and stabilize thesituation in Syria. In fact, Moscow has helped Washington on all three of these issues in the past;in the summer of 2013, it was Putin who pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire by forging thedeal under which Syria agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons, thereby avoiding the U.S.military strike that Obama had threatened. The United States will also someday need Russia’shelp containing a rising China. Current U.S. policy, however, is only driving Moscow andBeijing closer together.

The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue theircurrent policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process-- a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work tocreate a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the Westto repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 8 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

E-mail (example:[email protected]): *Get the latestcommentary and analysis delivered straight toyour inbox.

Email

SIGN UP

LATEST COMMENTARY & NEWS ANALYSIS

2067 Comments Foreign Affairs Login!1

Sort by Best Share "

Join the discussion…

• Reply •

Charlie Jellinek • 6 months ago

"In March, according to The New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkelimplied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was “in another world."

Question: Who the hell would leak just 3 words from a conversation between Obamaand Merkel to the NYT?

Anyway, the Office of the Federal Chancellor told a German newspaper: Merkel did notsay that Putin was irrational, what she said was Putin has a different perception, adifferent viewpoint concerning the situation in Crimea.

http://www.welt.de/politik/deu...

But the Guardian headlines: Vladimir Putin has lost the plot, says German chancellor

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

An Madeleine Albright goes on CNN to "agree" with Merkel.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/a...

Somebody in Washington sabotaged Merkel's attempt to diplomatically defuse thesituation and used her for some nice Propaganda. If I were her I would be furious.

355& %

• Reply •

knave27 • 6 months ago# Charlie Jellinek

This isn't the case, Merkel is fully devoted to implementing Washington's waragenda against Russia. Germany is the real US trojan horse in Europe, not littleand irrelevant Britain, and the country through which the Transatlantic policiesare filtered and imposed on Europe. It helps a lot that Germany detached itselfin the past from the military adventures of the US, unlike France and Britain,and always kept a a low profile when it came to war rhetoric to cover for its roleas the main enabler and facilitator of the US agenda in Europe. BTW this isn'twhat Merkel said about Putin, only another example of the NYT being theofficial outlet of Washington's war agenda, assigned with the responsibility totwist facts and fabricate evidence to sell wars and regime change.

182& %

JayTe • 6 months ago# knave27

Not even close! Germany is far from a trojan horse. Germany is one ofthe few actors who are at least trying to act rationally. I suspect that theUS has some very compromising stuff on Merkel and/or her governmentbecause what is abundantly clear is that she is openly working againstnot only her own interests but those of Germany.

And despite that, she's still trying to negotiate a diplomatic solutionbecause first and foremost is that if the tit for tat sanctions continues oropen warfare breaks out, Germany is the big loser. Even countries thatare openly and irrationally (to a certain degree) hostile towards Russia

Favorite $

Share ›

Share ›

More from the publisher of Foreign Affairs Newsletters

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 9 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

• Reply •

see more

are openly and irrationally (to a certain degree) hostile towards Russia(i.e. the Baltic states) are coming to their senses are realising that it's justmadness to continue with the present policy. They all know that sincePinchuk arranged to conference at Yalta in September 2013, the west hasbeen hell bent on pushing this change in Ukraine even though Russiawarned them of the consequences and recommended that Ukraine serveas a bridge between the east and west so that it could gradually bebrought up to western standards rather than abruptly turning its back onRussia and embrace the west since at least 3/4 of the population in

168& %

• Reply •

knave27 • 6 months ago# JayTe

What nonsense. As I wrote elsewhere going against one's ownnational interests is one of the prerequisites in order to be an"ally" of the US. Germany is still an occupied country by the US.It has no sovereignty. It is occupied politically, economically,strategically and intellectually by the Altanticist-US block.Germany, far from seeking a diplomatic solution, was the chiefinstigator of the Maidan uprising and the country that initiatedEU sanctions against Russia even if they are against Europeaninterests because as Merkel put it "we need to show that we areserious about Russia". She is willing to sacrifice the well-being ofGerman citizens to serve US strategic interests. Merkel raped thenation of Greece in order to introduce the IMF which is a tool ofUS financial occupation, further cementing US control over theEuropean economy. Germany never negotiated in good faith withRussia or independently from the US. It was merely acting as amessenger of Washington's arrogant demands towards Russia.She does all this willingly and not because the US has"compromising stuff" since Merkel is not the "leader" ofGermany. She is merely the appointed regional overseer of the USempire, like the provincial governors of Roman times, assignedwith the task to adjust the US imperatives and dictates to theEuropean political and economic reality.

174& %

• Reply •

blackfeather99 • 6 months ago# knave27

Merkel is a puppet of American interests. Germany is anoccupied country, and has been since 1945. It is occupiedmilitarily and the pivot of American imperialism inEurope. It is occupied culturally and ideologically. TheGerman elites fully subscribe to the verdict of theNuremburg SHOW-TRIALS, meaning to the concoctedlies of the victors. In a collective sense they suffer from aversion of the Stockholm Syndrome and love the abusersof their own people. The mere fact that the official line inGermany is that she was "liberated" in 1945 reveals theabjection of these elites. Read HELLSTORM. THEDEATH OF NAZI GERMANY by Thomas Goodrich andsee what this "liberation' looked like---millions murdered,starved to death, expelled from their home provinces,rang-rapes and tortures the entertainment of the day andof the night. Thank you America!

98& %

• Reply •

beorn • 5 months ago# blackfeather99

Everyone listen to this guy. America started WW II notGermany. The Americans were responsible for the nazideath camps, and forced Germany to invade WesternEurope and Russia so they could reap the economicrewards of the war and reconstruction!!!

93& %

Jonathan Swift • 4 months ago# beorn

I understand you are satirizing the piece but there is somecredence that the treaty in Versailles put war guilt onGermany and imposed such fierce reparation expectationon the country that England and France can be said tohave laid the ground work for bitterness in Germany

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 10 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

• Reply •

which Hitler then used to build up nationalistic pride inGermany.

27& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago# Jonathan Swift

The treaty was very very wrong but war creates bitternessas the likes of Hitler and his evil killers actions haveproved. You will note it was not the UK or the west ingeneral that invaded country after country in such avicious manner. I can't see how you could call or considerall that was done by Germans "national pride"

10& %

• Reply •

Tapasap • 5 months ago# beorn

LOL, brilliant satire! 19& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 5 months ago# beorn

Total and utter rubbish. 13& %

• Reply •

David Murphy • 5 months ago# beorn

He's a complete nutter, but then so is the author of theoriginal article, who seems to believe that the US is inthrall to the Jews and zionists (he has written elsewhereon this subject).

13& %

• Reply •

Nityananda Svarupa das • 4 months ago

# David Murphy

You think the US isn't controlled by zionist gangsters?

Oh boy. 33& %

• Reply •

Lucy Joy • 4 months ago# Nityananda Svarupa das

stupid and ridiculous assumptions! 4& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago# Lucy Joy

Yes Lucy, from stupid and ridiculous people if you can callthem that, they talk more like morons than anything else.

2& %

• Reply •

Zhar Bird • 5 months ago# David Murphy

Well, someone is pulling Obama and Merkel's strings... 13& %

• Reply •

hatfey • 5 months ago# David Murphy

they are but you lazy ass yanks are too good to figure that .Stupid dimwits

11& %

• Reply •

Daniel Anderson • 8 days ago# hatfey

Has anyone seen "into the woods"? We're playing theblame game like they did, all these actions by differentpeople in different parts of the world culminated insomething no one wanted. All that's done is over anddone, and can't be changed. The biggest question now iswho will step up and stop reacting to perceived wrong, butrather start being proactive to the solving of problems.Retribution is necessary at times but only gets you so far.You say something not nice to a kid because he might havelooked at you funny, he might push you. You don't likebeing pushed, so you push back. That makes him angrierso he takes a swing. This doesn't end because you bothhave friends, and they'll help. Pretty soon kids are going tothe hospital, and everyone thinks they are justified. Let'sface the fact that both parties were wrong, the true causecannot be clearly established, and get on with life

3& %

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 11 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

• Reply • 3& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago# beorn

I've never heard such drivel from the last three commentsin my life. It's no wonder Russia is like it is with sucharrogant, uniformed, despicable untrue propagandawords coming from such people. They certainly have noreasoning for such disrespectful words for any or allforeign nations. Surely they are referring to a Russia thathas no respect for anything, anyone or any nation.

10& %

• Reply •

@rno • 2 months ago# newsfromwashington

And the USA has a lot of respect? ->

http://thainews.prd.go.th/cent...

They just control their press and vasal states better thenRussia does so it seems...

9& %

• Reply •

predrag cvetkovic • 2 months ago

# newsfromwashington

Everything started with a fib that Russia is a Europe, orworlds, saviour in WWII. When the world realize that thatnation is mainly prone to resolve its own interests,andnoones else, will be a progress. We speak about people, inbig majority, that venerate the most ridiculous politicalcaracters in human history. Soviet Union has neversuffered domestic upheaval. About 30 milion were killedand they never stood against. That "country" stopped toexist due the economical problems not because russianswanted to. Other, todays free countries like baltic orkaukaz states made the initiative and all Eastern Europe(but Yugoslavia that never made a part ) is very thankfullfor breaking that perverse coalition. Mr. Putin is doingwhat his people is eager to see.

4& %

• Reply •

Evgeniya Moscow • 4 months ago

# newsfromwashington

In Russia no sane people accept this view. Thecorrespondent to whom you reply surely has nothing to dowith Russia, or may be purposefully provoking suchreaction.

2& %

• Reply •

JOHN CAMERON • 3 months ago# beorn

You can't anymore cynical than than that. Would you liketo prove that?

& %

• Reply •

Roger Wee • 5 months ago# blackfeather99

Well stated! The founding families of Federal Reserve ofAmerica are the ones that finance Hilter in his campaign.http://www.usagold.com/federal... These are the peoplethat is behind this conflict. They owns the medias, banksand controls nations. They tried to control Putin, but gotkick out of Russia, this time round is for Revenge.

47& %

Greg • 23 days ago# Roger Wee

Russia has always been an aggressor nation. Take a look attheir history. Never has the leadership really cared abouttheir citizens. The people of Russia have learned how tolive in a world where they do not matter. This is a nationof people that cannot perform any "critical thinking". Asmentioned earlier Stalin murdered millions and thepeople did nothing. I cannot think of another countrywhere its citizens just stood back to watch as they areabused.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 12 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

• Reply •

see more

Putin cannot believe that Ukrainians want a different life.He is shocked that people will refuse to submit to theleadership. Putin is after worship just as Hitler.

What Russia needs to understand or better yet to acceptis, why no one wants to be part of a Russian world? Whyare no countries running to embrace this man andcountry?

10& %

• Reply •

Marco Amaral • 5 months ago# blackfeather99

What??? Do you know the meaning of nazi? It is NationalSocialism. You can even check out its program in the 30's.You should study a little bit more its elementalbackground. Also try to interview people who lived inGermany that time (as I did) and try to note the differencebetween both Germanys before and after the wall fall.Despite of the interests of NATO (always business notideology and in fact this is controversial I have to agree),Putin is a genocidal like his predecessors. Do you supportpeople like them???

17& %

• Reply •

Miamigirl • 5 months ago# Marco Amaral

How many conflicts has Putin started and how manypeople died as a result in last 14 years? Now compare thisto how many conflicts we started and how many peopledied.

145& %

• Reply •

Artem Nazarov • 5 months ago# Miamigirl

Marry me) 20& %

• Reply •

Dave the neutral • 2 months ago# Miamigirl

Please read your history about how many people werekilled in Chechnya, Georgia and the other ex Soviet Statesthat have been part separated by Putin. I believe inChechnya 20% of the population were slaughtered.

4& %

• Reply •

Rodney • a month ago

see more

# Dave the neutral

Don't be an idiot. Chechnya is very much like Afghanistan.The problems started there in the early 1990's and most ofthe then uprising was funded by that good mate of theUSA "Saudi Arabia". Yeltsen probbaly did the wrong thingby using too much force. About 19,000 bombing sortiesflown against the estimated 20,000/25,000 "Separatists"Sunni Terrorists. Whatever you want to call them. Youknow the type the USA loves to support if it suits therepurpose. Something like the Taliban that the USArecruited and supported and armed into power inAfghanistan. The Russians pulled out of Chechnya 1996.They virtually had independence. Should have been noproblem. They had there own Government and to allintents and purposes were independent. With about asmuch oil as Kuwait they should have prospered. As usualthe Saudis were not there to finance the re-starting of theOil Industry and no Western Oil Company was willing toinvest money there with basically a Terrorist Government

16& %

Dave the neutral • a month ago# Rodney

RodneyWhy do you spout crap and belittle other peoplesopinions. The USA or the EU are no worse than Russia.Why did/does Russia put people in prison for political

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 13 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

• Reply •

Why did/does Russia put people in prison for politicalreasons? that does not happen in the free democraticworld. Why does Russia allow criminals from othercountries to reside in their country? I could state the onesI mean but I a sure you also know. Why does Russiasupport the Donbass area of Ukraine? (internal strife) whydid Russia send attack helicopters into Crimea withsoldiers in unidentified uniforms. Why was the supposedCrimean election not monitored by an international body.If you are not an idiot as you state me to be, do you knowthat it against the Geneva convention to enter anothercountry under arms and unidentified. Whether you arefrom the West, East or Mars you need to respect otherpeoples views and knowledge. Let us see what Putin willdo now as Russia's economy is in free fall. Finally youneed to understand the difference between the words"there" and "their" to prove you are an intelligent person.Good Bye.

4& %

• Reply •

Stas Filippov • 3 days ago# Rodney

Thank you! & %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago# Miamigirl

I'm not American Miamigirl but I see it that the US endedit not started it. Might be an idea if you did marry Artemor even Mr Wee. I can see every reason for what the UShas done except for the billions of dollars they have givenaway to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

1& %

• Reply •

Roger Wee • 5 months ago# Marco Amaral

I believe you had you head screw somewhere else ! Yes,Russia before Putin was destructive. You have to studyPutin only after he comes in power, 2000. Yes, he controlsRussia with an Iron Fist. He has to as there were a lot ofwestern WOLFS circling round Russia hoping for itsdestruction, so they can pick up the pieces, Putin saw this.Why you think he Nationalise all the criticalinfrastructures ? How many Banksters & Nobles did hearrest ?From 2000 onwards, Russia from a country on thebrink of Bankrupt, he has brought it to a country withmore than USD$2 Trillion Dollars surplus. Russia is thesame as China, it needs time to grow and reform, but itmust be controlled by an Iron Fist. It is like a teenage kidhaving his first taste of freedom.

68& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 5 months ago# Roger Wee

Seems that there are few who know exactly how Russiasurvived after the fall of Communism. Just ask the U.S.ofA.

5& %

• Reply •

Nityananda Svarupa das • 4 months ago

# newsfromwashington

You really are very uninformed.

Have you studied the Iraq war? It's the single greatestembarrassment in the last 100 years of world history - yetthe American people don't even know what happened.

Most Americans don't know what's going on at all. Yourgovernment is lying to you and a few wealthypeople/families are sucking your country dry.

38& %

windship • 3 months ago# Nityananda Svarupa das

NATO's pompous and futile destruction of Libya hasn'ttaught us anything either, obviously. The Ukraine has anunenviable future as a political football in a crowded field

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 14 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

• Reply •

unenviable future as a political football in a crowded fieldpopulated by historical imbeciles.

17& %

• Reply •

GEORGES SEGUNDO • 4 months ago

# Nityananda Svarupa das

True to the most deep core brother.

God bless you. 5& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago

# Nityananda Svarupa das

Incidentally, what has Iraq got to do with the fall ofcommunism in Russia.

2& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago

# Nityananda Svarupa das

You sir are a total fool. Every government on this earthdoes exactly the same thing, suck the blood from yourbody and your bank account. Every citizen of everycountry is aware of this with the exception of youapparently. If that thug Putin was so damn clever atrunning Russia he sure as hell wouldn't need Crimea andeastern Ukraine for access.

2& %

• Reply •

peter • 4 months ago# newsfromwashington

what is it with you? as if you are in the know aboutanything?you go out there talking sh.t...educate yourself andremember , history is always written by the winner...

10& %

• Reply •

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago# peter

If history is written by the winner it is usually written by aliar.

3& %

• Reply •

peter • 3 months ago# newsfromwashington

but of course my friend....lies always lies...look at at the Nuremberg trial and forgedevidences....funny also, nobody ever talks about the the 30million chinese massacre during second world war , andthe Holodomor massacre , people blamed Stalin , but whowas the very special group of people under Stalin reallydoing the massacre? counless stories like this ...and veryfew people are awareof what really happened..they just go with the propaganda, reading without critisizing what they read...Cheers

5& %

• Reply •

peter • 4 months ago# newsfromwashington

of course because the winner does not want to undetminehis own bullshi.t

1& %

• Reply •

Nityananda Svarupa das • 4 months ago

# newsfromwashington

If you'd have studied history at all then you'd know you'rewrong. To say all governments are like that is to be utterlynaive. You don't have to look too far into history to seenoble leaders. Unfortunately you have to contend with themedia's portrayal of those leaders and thus miss out onthe truth.

5& %

newsfromwashington • 4 months ago

# Nityananda Svarupa das

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 15 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

Load more comments

• Reply •

You should read the article even if it's just the headlines. Ididn't realize Iraq was in Crimea or Ukraine. better get outthe map book.

& %

• Reply •

Dave the neutral • 2 months ago# Roger Wee

Please tell how Putin has got his estimated 50 milliondollar fortune? He has never managed a business in hislife!

1& %

• Reply •

Rodney • a month ago# Dave the neutral

Give us some facts. Nobody knows what he is worth. 1& %

• Reply •

Dave the neutral • a month ago# Rodney

RodneyPlease read what I said, it is an ESTIMATED worth, Iwould prefer that you surf the net to find the answer toyour question instead of asking someone else to do yourwork for you, it is not difficult.

& %

• Reply •

johncdvorak • 5 days ago# Dave the neutral

$50 million is chickenfeed nowadays for these guys. Let'sfind out how Clinton got his $500 million. This is alldiscussed in detail on the No Agenda Show.

& %

• Reply •

Dave the neutral • 5 days ago# johncdvorak

I was awaiting someone to correct me but it has goneunnoticed, Putin's wealth is estimated at 50 billion dollarsnot 50 million. I guess he got it by colluding with the otherRussian oligarchs, killing those who opposed him.

& %

Subscribe' Add Disqus to your site( Privacy)

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 16 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 17 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

13.02.15 13:01John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs

Page 18 of 18http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault