During a panel discussion in June of 2014 – four months after the toppling of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine – Professor John Mearsheimer was asked whether Ukrainians have a right to choose to join the West. His emphatic answer, which provoked laughter from his fellow panellists, was: “No, they don’t.”
This gets to the very heart of the current crisis. Those who deny the West bears any responsibility insist that we must uphold the principle that every state is sovereign and can enter whichever alliances it chooses. Now, this sounds very appealing. But there’s one major problem with it.
The problem is that the US – by far the most important Western country – has blatantly and repeatedly violated this principle over the last five decades. Hence if the West wants to make any kind of normative argument against Russia’s aggression, it has to explain why it doesn’t hold itself to the same standards.
This point was made eloquently by Robert Wright in a recent essay titled ‘In Defense of Whataboutism’. As he notes:
Exercises in whataboutism force people to mount what Singer calls “a disinterested defense of one’s conduct.” They have to articulate a general rule—or a general exception to a general rule—that applies to everyone in comparable circumstances.
Since there’s no “general rule” under which America’s foreign policy would be justified but Russia’s foreign policy would not be, the West cannot mount a “disinterested defence” of its conduct. (I suppose certain countries like Iceland might be able to, but the US – the only one that really matters – certainly can’t.)
So the West doesn’t actually uphold the principle that every state is sovereign and can enter whichever alliances it chooses. Once this is established, the question arises, ‘Is Ukraine one of those states that can’t enter whichever alliances it chooses?’
The Russians believe it is, and have made clear that Ukraine joining the West is an absolute red line for them. How should the West have dealt with this ultimatum?
Well, the policy it did adopt was to ignore Russia’s ultimatum, and actively support the movement that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian government in 2014. This instantly led to Putin annexing Crimea, and the outbreak of the war in Donbass. Is there anything it could have done instead?
Yes, it could have adopted the policy John Mearsheimer put forward, which is based on accepting that Ukraine is one of those states that can’t enter whichever alliances it chooses.
His proposal comprised three main elements: ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine; funding an economic rescue plan, together with Russia and the IMF; and insisting that Ukraine respect minority rights, especially minority language rights. (Note: these were abolished by the country’s Constitutional Court in 2018.)
Now, it’s possible that Mearsheimer’s policy would simply not have worked – that even if it had been followed, we’d still be where we are today. However, the policy seems far more sensible, and far more likely to work, than the one Western leaders decided to pursue instead.
As he noted prohphetically in 2015, “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
China get 1 thing correct very specifically. They use coal to generate electricity and not windmills.
“Even a broken clock is right twice a day”
It’s hardly surprising a country the size of china gets some things right and even things like child abduction are down in countries like the UK as even though we don’t have the CCTV/facial recognition systems they do the growing network of private CCTV/ring doorbell type systems mean that (if the police choose to investigate) there will almost certainly be evidence to be found.
I’m sure the streets are very sage at night in Noerh Korea. General public safety tends to be a feature of steong authoritarian regimes.
Also, the advancement of women has always been a feature of Communism. It sounds like a good thing, and in many ways is, but it relates also to the communist idea of dissolving the family unit in favour of the state unit. Your country is your family, so to speak.
There are plenty of other goid things to pont out about Chuna. Ubiquitous and fast service for almost anything, great food, great atmosphere in the streets in the evenings.
Freedom comes at a price. Not just the one that everyone assumes – the risks of confronting authoritarian – but rather losing some of the inevitable benefits of a strong, forceful authority putting order.
My relatives who lived in what used to be the DDR said they used to feel safer than they do now. How much of the changes are to do with less rigid control and how much to do with importing cultures who are more likely to commit crimes is debatable. People probably used to feel quite safe in certain parts of Paris, or Brussels, or Stockholm.
I think if one had to live in one of those countries in the Far East I would choose Japan, South Korea or Singapore long before I would contemplate China. But I would not want to live in any of those countries. I would like to live in an England that will soon not exist, or in some staunchly Republican state in the US except I wouldn’t fit in there either because I’m not religious.
I don’t think it uniformity I the key. Spanish cities in the 1980s became less afe after Franco’s death. There was no iimmigration worth mentioning at the time. It was 100% down to a new culture of permissiveness.
I didn’t know that about Spain; thanks for the info.
As evidenced by the display of nakedness on Spanish beaches
I used to carry out some consultancy work for a Scandinavian airline. I was speaking to people who worked in their offices, prior to the fall of communism. I asked if they were happy with their new freedom of movement. They said that was nice, but the streets were much safer and there was much less crime under the communists.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/tarawa-when-america-was-shown-wars-grim-reality/
The film “With the Marines at Tarawa” is embedded. This required the authorisation of President Roosevelt before release and there is a warning at the start.
“With the Marines at Tarawa won the 1944 Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject. You can see it here.”
Chinese politicians have the confidence from knowing that internally they control any opponents and internationally they have bought their silence or support. In the UK tax payers finance opponents of what a majority of us support and internationally we do as they say.
A cage …. even if it is comfortable – is still a cage.