Ukraine: An Insistence Upon Historical Amnesia

Many seem to subscribe to the infantile notion that to clarify the context in which a crime is committed is to somehow exonerate the criminal. If one is seeking to stop an atrocity, or to at least mitigate its effects, the value of developing an understanding of its causes should be rather obvious. Instead, commentators insist upon historical amnesia, and they sling various insults at those who are discourteous enough to look for root causes. They restrict their scrutiny to psychoanalyzing the protagonists involved, searching for the mental disorder that inspired the crime. Or they make hostile but vacuous statements, advocating aggressive policies that will vastly increase the suffering of the current victims, and add more victims to the ranks of the suffering.

The mainstream reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine conforms sharply to this model, a fact illustrated by, among other things, the reaction to the statement released by the Democratic Socialists of America. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the DSA released a statement saying that Russian actions were "an illegal act under the United Nations Charter," and they urged "an immediate ceasefire and the total withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine." They also called for "the US to withdraw from NATO, and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict." Though this may seem to be a rather sane and reasonable position, the refined eye of the commentariat was able to detect its insidious character.

In its effort to present a nuanced position on the ongoing conflict, the DSA was deemed to have committed some variant of the sin of moral equivalence. Condemnation is to be reserved for Vladimir Putin, and any attempt at contextualizing events is considered to be vulgar apologetics for an act of aggression. The New York Post wrote three separate stories on the statement. One story began, rather absurdly: "It’s usually pretty easy to figure out what’s happening when an unexpected fight breaks out between Bambi and Godzilla, but as Ukraine fights for its life against Vlad the Invader, some strange alliances are forming. From the left and the right you hear: Hey, give the giant radioactive lizard a break, he’s misunderstood." The White House Rapid Response Director responded by simply calling the statement "shameful." Many who are typically considered to be allies of the DSA were also unsparing with their criticism.

We cannot be swayed by this inability to distinguish between elucidation and apologetics; placing events within an historical context is important, and we can’t be dissuaded from seeking to understand the causes that underlay world events. Any honest accounting of the tragedy occurring in Ukraine has to include a description of NATO expansion, and any accusation that this is appeasement, whataboutism, or some other transgression needs to be strongly repudiated. Examination of the reasons for the invasion doesn’t obscure its criminal character.

The Russian position was articulated very clearly by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said that "the main issue is our clear position on the inadmissibility of further expansion of NATO to the East and the deployment of strike weapons that could threaten the territory of the Russian Federation." The phrase further expansion is important: NATO expanded substantially further than "one inch eastward" and is now threatening to further encroach upon the Russian border.

During the NATO Bucharest summit, the Bush administration attempted to set Ukraine on a course to join NATO by offering them a Membership Action Plan, but France and Germany objected. The extent of the provocation to Russia isn’t ambiguous. In 2008, William Burns, who was then ambassador to Russia (and current CIA director), wrote in a memo to Condoleeza Rice: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)," and "In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests." The Bucharest summit concluded without the offer of a MAP to Ukraine but with a promise of NATO membership at some future date.

The progression of Ukraine’s admittance to NATO continued from there, and the aspiration is now implanted in the country’s Constitution. In 2020, NATO recognized Ukraine as an Enhanced Security Opportunities Partner. Joint military drills have occurred with the US and Ukraine, and western arms have been pouring into the country. Ukrainian soldiers are being trained by US personnel, both overtly and covertly. The Russian invasion has accelerated this process.

Many prominent analysts predicted that the expansion of NATO would eventually lead to war. Observing the recent developments in Ukraine outside of this historical context necessarily culminates in a distorted conception of what’s happening. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal who is committing the crime of aggression, but we needn’t neglect history to perceive this.