The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous injustice. Russia’s blatant aggression of 2022 recalls such similar infamous episodes as the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, repression of a rebellion in Hungary in 1956, and annexation of the Baltic states in 1940.
Precisely how many people have been killed since the invasion began on February 24th is unknown; as of this writing, hundreds of Ukrainian civilians have died, including children. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled Ukraine. Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has warned that “The humanitarian consequences on civilian populations will be devastating…countless lives will be torn apart.” Perhaps most worrying, Russian President Vladimir Putin has apparently placed Russian nuclear forces on heightened alert. How this conflict will end is anyone’s guess, but more people will die before it does.
The primary responsibility and guilt for this invasion lies with the Russian government, especially Putin. Putin’s decision to order this invasion of another country is wholly without justification.
While the Russian invasion may be unjustified, it was not unpredictable. That events would come to this could have been foreseen, even before the build-up of Russian troops close to Ukraine began in fall 2021. This invasion is the end result of a long sequence of events stretching back over 20 years.
Putin and other Russian policymakers bear the primary responsibility for this war, but they do not bear it alone. Other people, including policymakers in the United States, helped bring events to this point. This outbreak of war in Europe is an occasion to remember how events got to this point and to consider what to do next.
NATO Expansion and the Seeds of Conflict
While Putin no doubt has multiple motives for invading Ukraine, a significant motive is the desire to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Putin has repeatedly expressed his view that Ukrainian NATO membership would pose a threat to Russia. If Ukraine becomes part of NATO, Ukraine could become a gateway for a future western invasion of Russia or a base for US nuclear missiles capable of reaching Moscow quickly.
Fear of a NATO threat to Russia was a major theme, along with other grievances, in Putin’s speech of February 21, in which he said that “Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities” would mean “the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. And I would like to emphasise [sic] at this point that the risk of a sudden strike at our country will multiply… Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike.”
Such fears of future threats are not a moral justification for invading another country. Nevertheless, such fears are the kind of realpolitik security concerns one might expect a nation’s leaders to have. In the western hemisphere, the United States’ policies toward Cuba, for example, provide a parallel to Russian policy toward Ukraine.
A prudent US and NATO policy would have anticipated Russian security concerns and avoided provoking a military intervention such as the one currently unfolding in Ukraine. However, prudence has been sadly lacking in this area since the 1990s.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite regimes in Eastern Europe, NATO expanded to include nations that had previously been in the Soviet sphere of influence and even former Soviet republics. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in 1999; followed by Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 2004.
That NATO expansion would provoke a hostile Russian reaction could have been predicted—and repeatedly was. Many prominent US policymakers warned about how Russia would react to NATO expansion. William Perry, who was secretary of defense when the expansion was being pursued, commented in 1997 that the Russian reaction “ranges between being unhappy to being very unhappy…This is not just one or two or a few officials expressing a view, this is a very widely and very deeply held view in Russia.”
Years later, Perry reflected that in the post-Cold War period, the Russians “were beginning to get used to the idea that [NATO] could be a friend rather than an enemy … but they were very uncomfortable about having [NATO] right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”
William Burns, who was serving in the US embassy in Moscow in the 1990s (and is currently CIA director), cautioned at the time that “Hostility to early NATO expansion…is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum [in Russia].”
George F. Kennan, a US diplomat who had played an important role in making US Cold War policy, said in 1997 that
expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
Kennan also said, of NATO expansion, “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake… Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia.”
In 2008, when George W. Bush’s administration was pursuing NATO membership for Ukraine, Burns, who by now had served as US ambassador to Russia, offered a new warning:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)…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.
Burns also prophetically wrote that the pursuit of Ukrainian NATO membership would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”
In 2014, when Russia was fulfilling Burns’ prophecy by annexing Ukraine’s Crimea region, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote that “if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either [Russia’s or the West’s] outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.” He also flatly stated “Ukraine should not join NATO.”
Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski similarly commented that Ukraine could have “no participation in any military alliance viewed by Moscow as directed at itself.” During the Cold War, both Kissinger and Brzezinski were associated with hawkish US policies, yet even they did not advocate Ukrainian NATO membership.
Fear of NATO is not necessarily the only reason Russia has now invaded Ukraine. Nor, for that matter, is NATO expansion the only reason the Russians might understandably be suspicious of the United States and its allies. Nevertheless, the prospect of NATO including Ukraine has played a role in creating the current crisis, as demonstrated by the Russians’ repeated emphasis on this point during the lead-up to the invasion.
Granted, Russian actions over the past few months made stopping Ukrainian membership in NATO far more politically complicated. The United States and other NATO countries would understandably refuse to make such a major concession in the face of apparent military threats. Concessions would be rewarding aggression. (For my part, I argued against such a concession earlier in this crisis for precisely this reason.)
In retrospect, however, maybe an unyielding stance was not the correct one to take. Compromise in the face of a threatened invasion would have been bad, yet failure to compromise may have led to the far worse outcome we are seeing today.
Avoiding any escalation in the war is imperative. If another nation gets directly involved in the war, the violence might only worsen; if the United States or NATO gets directly involved, then World War III becomes a possibility. US President Joseph Biden’s repeated statements that American troops will not intervene in the Ukraine-Russia war are encouraging. The United States and other nations should remain committed to non-intervention.
While not as perilous as direct involvement, the United States or other western nations continuing to send weapons or military equipment to Ukraine could be very dangerous. More weapons could mean longer and bloodier fighting and greater loss of life. Rather than send more weapons to Ukraine, the community of nations should make every effort to keep additional weapons out of Russia’s hands.
Economic sanctions on Putin and other Russian elites are a reasonable response. The Ukrainians should seriously consider using nonviolent methods of resistance to defend their independence. Compared to violent resistance, such methods are more likely to succeed in at least limiting Russian rule over the country and far less likely to provoke extreme violent repression..
Giving refugees from the fighting a safe haven and getting humanitarian aid to those affected by the war are essential. Please consider giving to Catholic Relief Services (https://support.crs.org/donate/donate-ukraine), Mennonite Central Committee (https://mcc.org/), and other groups working to help people in Ukraine.
Above all, diplomatic efforts are needed to bring about a cease-fire. The actions of peace-minded Russians who have protested the war in spite of state repression are encouraging. Let’s hope their voices and those of others opposed to war prevail.
A version of this essay originally appeared on the Consistent Life Network blog.
 Yuras Karmanau, Jim Heintz, Vladimir Isachenkov, and Dasha Litvinova, “Putin Puts Nuclear Forces on High Alert, Escalating Tensions,” Associated Press, February 27, 2022, https://bit.ly/36IMFIW.
 “Statement on the Situation in Ukraine Attributed to UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi,” United Nations Refugee Agency, February 24, 2022, https://bit.ly/396fyPT.
 Karmanau et al., “Putin Puts Nuclear Forces on High Alert.”
 Tim Marshall, “Russia and the Curse of Geography,” Atlantic Monthly, October 31, 2015, https://bit.ly/3EBtv2F; Vladimir Isachenkov, “Putin Warns West: Moscow Has ‘Red Line’ about Ukraine, NATO,” Associated Press, November 30, 2021, https://bit.ly/3ei8rTU.
 “Address by the President of the Russian Federation,” President of Russia, February 21, 2022, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828.
 “Member Countries,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, September 24, 2020, https://bit.ly/3EDTxUt.
 Jim Hoagland, “The Perry Proposition for NATO,” Washington Post, January 9, 1997, https://wapo.st/3k83TCp.
 Julian Borger, “Russian Hostility ‘Partly Caused by West’, Claims Former US Defence Head,” Guardian, March 9, 2016, https://bit.ly/3s9ZFin.
 Peter Beinart, “Biden’s CIA Director Doesn’t Believe Biden’s Story about Ukraine,” The Beinart Notebook, February 7, 2022, https://bit.ly/3rPcOx3.
 George F. Kennan, “A Fateful Error,” New York Times, February 5, 1997, https://nyti.ms/3xQ5Rj0.
 Quoted in Thomas L. Friedman, “This Is Putin’s War. But America and NATO Aren’t Innocent Bystanders,” New York Times, February 21, 2022, https://nyti.ms/395X4Py.
 Beinart, “Biden’s CIA Director.”
 William J. Burns, “How the U.S.-Russian Relationship Went Bad,” Atlantic Monthly, https://bit.ly/3LkMWkq.
 Henry A. Kissinger, “To Settle the Ukraine Crisis, Start at the End,” Washington Post, March 5, 2014, https://wapo.st/3vgvs2I.
 Peter Beinart, “America’s Generation Gap on Ukraine,” The Beinart Notebook, January 24, 2022, https://bit.ly/3xSbEEE.
 I discuss some other possible reasons for Russian distrust of the west in “Using Empathy during a New Cold War.”
 Andrew E. Kramer and Steven Erlanger, “Russia Lays Out Demands for a Sweeping New Security Deal With NATO,” New York Times, December 17, 2021, https://nyti.ms/3mviE3N.
 Uliana Pavlova, Tara John, and Vasco Cotovio, “US and NATO Responses Fail to Address Russia’s Main Concerns, Says Foreign Minister Lavrov,” CNN, January 28, 2022, https://cnn.it/3xSSqPl.
 Robert Wright, “Why Biden Didn’t Negotiate Seriously with Putin,” Nonzero Newsletter, February 21, 2022, https://bit.ly/3ku11QN.
 “Remarks by President Biden Providing an Update on Russia and Ukraine,” White House, February 18, 2022, https://bit.ly/3MqVMx2; “Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s Unprovoked and Unjustified Attack on Ukraine,” White House, February 24, 2022, https://bit.ly/3k7Tve9.
 Ashley Cowburn, “Boris Johnson Announces Extra Military Support to Ukraine, Including ‘Lethal Aid,’” Independent, February 23, 2022, https://bit.ly/3rRTI9k; Deborah Haynes, “Ukraine Invasion: Germany to Send Hundreds of Weapons and Missiles As More Countries Pledge Aid,” Sky News, February 27, 2022, https://bit.ly/36PhkEs; Steve Holland and Mike Stone, “Biden Approves $350 Million in Military Aid for Ukraine,” Reuters, February 26, 2022, https://reut.rs/3xUgPUQ; Ellen Mitchell, “Pentagon Mulling Ways to Get More Lethal Aid to Ukraine,” The Hill, February 25, 2022, https://bit.ly/3kabj8a.
 “U.S. Treasury Imposes Sanctions on Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov,” US Department of the Treasury, February 25, 2022, https://bit.ly/3K9zX3u; “List of Sanctions against Russia after It Invaded Ukraine,” Al Jazeera, March 3, 2022, https://bit.ly/3OASitG.
 For information on methods of nonviolent resistance, see the website of the Albert Einstein Institute (https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/).
 See “Making a Nonviolent Revolution.”
 For more ways to help, see Jeff Dean and Jonathan Franklin, “Want to Support the People in Ukraine? Here’s How You Can Help,” NPR, February 25, 2022, https://n.pr/36LWh5J.
 “Muscovites Come Out to Protest the War,” Moscow Times, February 25, 2022, https://bit.ly/3CDgrKI; Felix Light, “Russians Protest Ukraine Invasion Despite Crushed Opposition, Risk of Reprisals,” Moscow Times, February 25, 2022, https://bit.ly/3MPqAJ1.
© 2022 John Whitehead. All rights reserved.