Putin’s American ‘Useful Idiots’ Reemerge Before NATO Summit

The Intellectual Poverty of Realism

This week a group of 50 academics and anointed “experts” released a public letter calling for Ukraine to be kept out of NATO. In some ways it was extremely predictable.

There were people like Mearsheimer, Posen and Walt, who had been telling us for years that Russia was a “great” power and that therefore Ukraine had to be sacrificed to Russian interest. Moreover, they said before February 24, 2022, this was nothing personal. All great powers do this, regardless of leadership (in other words, Putin doesn’t matter). They also said that Russia, being a great power, would overwhelm Ukraine in short order in 2022. It’s important to remember this—because they are returning to many of the same arguments they made then even when they have been shown to be false.

The letter starts with an odd historical background narrative. The first point it makes is that NATO Article 5 will “bind” the USA to fight for Ukraine. Remember this point—because the letter goes on and twists it in the next paragraph.

NATO’s Article 5 is widely considered to bind members of the alliance — in practice the United States above all — to go to war to repel an attack against any member. If Ukraine were to join NATO after the current war, the United States and its Allies would be understood to be making a commitment to fight Russian forces over Ukraine, should Russia invade again.

Other Topics of Interest

Harshest Winter Yet: Will Ukraine Withstand New Russian Attacks on Its Energy Sector?

A challenging winter awaits Ukraine due to limited air defense and increased cooperation between Russia and its allies. What is Ukraine doing about it?

Then it makes the case that the USA was right not to fight for Ukraine now (because of escalation) and that therefore, it seems, it should not fight for Ukraine in the future. There is no attempt to say why Ukraine is different from other parts of the old USSR such as the Baltic States—that are now in NATO. Are they therefore not in the US interest as well? One might say that what the authors are saying is that the Baltics are not in US interest either—but they don’t have the courage to do that.

The letter basically contradicts itself in a breathtaking fashion

The real problem the authors say is that that the USA would have to fight for Ukraine even if it were in NATO—the problem would be that the USA would actually choose not to fight for Ukraine even if it were in NATO. This paragraph is so strange that I will put the whole thing here and then break it down into its constituent parts.

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking. Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war. If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance. The result could be a direct NATO-Russia war or the unraveling of NATO itself.

Let’s start with the first two sentences

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking.

This is a remarkable claim on face value. Russia has never attacked a NATO country and indeed has done everything possible not to attack a NATO country. Russia is clearly terrified of NATO, and one reason Russia has attacked Ukraine (as opposed to the Baltics for instance) is that Ukraine is not in NATO and was not covered by article 5—and the Baltics were.

Russia has never invaded a NATO country because it is deterred from doing so. At least the authors should have the intellectual courage to admit this.

Also, the paragraph completely misses the transformation of much of European NATO’s thinking since 2022—basing much of its argument on a prediction that even if Ukraine were in NATO—NATO would not fight for it—thus showing the alliance was bluff.

Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war. If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance.

Fact and Naive Wishful Thinking

It’s hard to know where to start with such a series of sentences, which would be laughable were it in an undergraduate essay. It’s basically saying, “I have no past evidence for my main argument, so I will make up a future scenario where what happens will prove I am right.”

NATO never fought for nations that were not in it before and has always deterred for nations in it. There is zero evidence that if Ukraine were in NATO, somehow it would be treated differently. Indeed, the whole history of the integration of the former parts of the USSR and Warsaw Pact shows the exact opposite (and of course is not mentioned in the letter).

They idea that somehow thinking about security, national interest and Ukraine has been constant since 2014 also misses out that there has been an extraordinary change since 2022, and many European states, for instance, have come to see Ukraine as vital to their national interest. At the same time NATO has been invigorated since 2022—with Sweden and NATO joining. NATO is not seen as more of a guarantee of security than the opposite.

And states in Central/Eastern Europe do absolutely see and independent and free Ukraine in NATO as vital to their own security. Moreover, there is no evidence that were Ukraine in NATO, its security would be viewed as less central to the alliance than say the Baltics (which are getting more and more investment). Indeed, the whole thrust of NATO is to be more united when it comes to defending the integrity of their members—not less. This is why European states want Ukraine in NATO—because they know it matters.

Finally, even if there might be some uncertainty about whether the rest of NATO would fight for Ukraine were it in—that uncertainty is an argument to add Ukraine. Its strategic ambiguity at its finest. Russia would have to make a major gamble—and guess that NATO is a strategic paper tiger when it comes to Ukraine. What’s the harm in that—that strategic ambiguity has a deterrent factor all its own. Indeed, the letter itself shows the power of such ambiguity—when it shows the effect of escalation thinking on deterring aid for Ukraine so far as stated above.

So, the whole paragraph is bizarre. Its main argument is based on a future scenario that almost certainly will never happen, and the effect of strategic ambiguity—which the letter already acknowledges—is overlooked.

If this paragraph is intellectually weak then the next paragraph is just pathetic. It’s the obligatory “poor Ukrainians” paragraph that appears in every piece by people who don’t want to support Ukraine. It also seems to get the whole war wrong as well (realists really don’t understand war and power—it’s amazing).

Look, if you don’t want to support Ukraine, that’s your choice. But don’t pretend that what you are doing is better for Ukrainians when they are choosing to fight for their very existence.

Here is how this paragraph begins.

Dangling NATO membership for Ukraine does a disservice to Ukrainians who are bravely fighting for their independence. The closer NATO comes to promising that Ukraine will join the alliance once the war ends, the greater the incentive for Russia to keep fighting the war and killing Ukrainians so as to forestall Ukraine’s integration into NATO.

This just completely misses the war at present. You can’t add to Putin’s incentive to keep fighting the war. He is fighting the war because if he loses his regime could collapse. He is already doing everything possible to win the war already—slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people, destroying Russian military equipment at an unprecedented clip, turning Russia into an economic vassal of China, and committing war crimes daily.

The paragraph (indeed the whole letter) plays a clever trick on the reader by not mentioning Putin—only Russia—as if the present Russian regime doesn’t matter. The incentive to keep fighting is now mostly through the present regime—and to be frank that can’t be made greater.

Moreover, if “Russia” knew that Ukraine were going into NATO I could construct a future where this will end the war sooner (if realists can make up a future that suits their interests—I can too). If it’s made clear that Ukraine will go into NATO, it makes continuing the war futile for Russia. Indeed, it would be more likely to weaken the Putin regime than anything else, as it will have shown how the regime has basically committed a strategic act of self-harm.

So, once again, this letter presupposes future action for which there is little evidence and does it in such a way that it sheds crocodile tears for Ukraine. It also fails to acknowledge that in fighting as they are—Ukrainians have made their choice. This is deliberately missed at the end of this paragraph, where the group basically takes upon itself to lecture Ukrainians on how they should make their own choices.

Ukraine faces difficult choices of enormous consequence for its future. Ukrainians deserve to weigh their strategic options through clear eyes, not through rose-tinted glasses held out by outsiders who do not have the support of their countries.

Ukrainians know there is no guarantee of NATO membership, they knew it on Feb. 24, 2022—and they have still decided to fight (when it should be remembered many of these realists wanted to abandon them).

The last paragraph of the letter simply repeats many of the errors. Once again it claims, without evidence, that having Ukraine pledged to NATO would lengthen the war, and it claims that Ukraine’s fate is not in NATO interest (without mentioning the view of many of those in Central/Eastern/Nordic Europe.

Ultimately this is a letter written to justify earlier failures of the authors. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Reprinted from the author’s blog – Phillips’s Newsletter. See the original here.

The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.