Unprovoked or unanticipated?
[I drafted this piece one and half years ago. Something must have distracted me from publishing it. It seems tragically relevant still.]
Many people familiar with the lead up to the war over Ukraine assert that it is wrong to say Russia was “unprovoke.” They can cite a string of venerable US diplomats who warned against crossing Russia’s “red line” on Ukraine joining the Western fold, the EU and/or NATO. So did NATO “provoke” Russia by promising membership in due course to Ukraine? Did Ukraine “get what it deserved” from Russia by seeking such ties to the West?
To get at the answer to this question, let’s consider a more prosaic case. If Andy says to Bobby, “You look at me cross-eyed one more time and I will turn your face into pulp!” Bobby, pays no heed, crosses his eyes again at Andy, and Andy proceeds to turn Bobby face into pulp. So, was Andy provoked? Does Andy’s prior warning justify his subsequent behavior? Was Bobby “asking for it”?
Since Andy was clearly capable of carrying out his threat, Bobby was clearly being a bit reckless crossing his eyes again. But take note here that we are describing a bully/bullied relationship. Bobby foolishness, in no way exonerates, Andy’s brutal behavior. Andy brutality is criminal, even if Bobby was “asking for it”. To stay on the right side of the law, Andy should have showed self-restraint. One could argue, that Bobby may have been counting on Andy to restrain himself.
However, as a bully, Andy may very well have had a reputation for following through on his threats. In that case, Bobby was indeed provoking Andy.
Perhaps, it is clear by now where this line of reasoning is headed: the accusation of Western provocation, only holds water if Russia is a recognized bully. So, it is paradoxical that the critique of “unprovoked” is largely advanced by those who insist that Putin is not at all a bully.
If Ukraine and it supporters had accused Russia of “unanticipated” action, criticism of that would have been wholy justified. Russia had provided ample evidence of bullying behavior before and, subsequently had, followed through. It would have been naive to have anticipated a differ outcome in this case.
So, if the invasion was not unanticipated, was it therefore provoked? If a law-abiding person is not provoked by being looked at cross-eyed, then that action is not provocative. It is Andy’s (Putin’) exaggerateed tendency to swing into bullying action that is at fault.
A genuine provocation is one that is, by default, at fault, i.e. would provoke a legal response from a law-abiding person. Indeed, the correct response would be resort to legal redress — or, in a more extreme situation, to self-defense.
Ukraine’s desire to interact more closely with the West than with Russia, was not illegal. What about its effort to restore sovereignty over the Donbas? Was that a genuine — illegal — provocation? While it would normally be considered an “internal matter”, nowadays the international thinking is not so cut and dry, thanks to a push, from the West, for a so-called “responsibility to protect”.
Russia argued that Ukraine was intent on suppressing the Russian-speaking people of the Donbas and it would be negligent on their part not to intervene on their behalf. If Russia’s action had been strictly consistent in this regard, they would have been no more cupable than some Western countries that have acted unilaterally citing the responsibility-to-protect pretext. But their action was totally inconsistent with that “provocation”.
Russia did not confine its “special military operation” to the Donbas. It went after Kyev, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Zaporizhia, and Kherson without even pretending to make a case for a “responsibility to protect” the inhabitants of any of those regions. Indeed, Russia’s brutal behavior in the lands it occupied made a mockery of the notion of protection.
Not surprisingly, that excuse for the invasion has featured less and less in Russian statements, replaced by the broader claim that the war is fundamentally the opening shot in a showdown between the West and Russia, as well as China and whatever other friends they can muster. The argument that Russia’s survival depends upon having under its control a “near abroad” does not pretend to have a UN internationally-sanctioned justification. It is realpolitik at its starkest.
While some in the West have sympathy for that approach, the even more disturbing phenomenon is that not a few Western leaders (civilian and military) have embraced the “showdown” mentality. This degrades the discussion about the war over Ukraine to which side will “collapse” first. And not just militarily, but also economicaly, as in “When the sanctions really start to bit.” or “When their citizens are shivering in the cold and dark.”
Will Russia regain its “due” buffer zone in Eastern Europe? Will NATO “uphold the right” of nations to join whichever military alliance they wish?This is so much posturing at the expense of the Ukranian people, and indirectly of people all around the world.
As the huge Russian build-up amassed along Ukraine’s borders, the West also anticipated, that Russia would overrun Ukraine in a matter of days. Pause for a minute and think about that: the West was resigned to losing Ukraine! Perhaps there were vague ideas of supporting a Ukrainian resistance movement and a government in exile, to extract a price at least for Russia’s victory — and, of course, more sanctions.
No doubt they warned the Ukrainian leadership of this “fate”; but when the moment arrive, President Zelenskyy defied expectations and turned down the evacuation offer. So, far from being a handpuppet of the West, Ukraine began to set the terms of its own defense — and continues to do so.
Those who buy the claim that this is a western “proxy war”, invariable call for an end to the supply of weapons to Ukraine, since this “only prolongs the war”. Well, what about the Russian supplies, not to mention soldiers, pouring across the border, that doesn’t prolong it?? And missiles, planes, and drones flying in? Cannot they see that cutting off supplies one-sidedly would only “shorten” the war if it leads to that side’s defeat? I fear that is an outcome some of these proxy-baiting folks would actually welcome.
So, the West should not have been under any illusion that Ukraine’s increasing integration into the EU and NATO could proceed without evoke a military response from Russia. It may have unwittingly misjudged and pushed back too hard against Russia’s red-lines. Russia, on the other hand, may have judged that it had waited too long to deploy bullying tactics.
In conclusion:
— Russia was NOT provoked, and
— the West (including Ukraine) canNOT claim the war was unanticipated.
While one is a sin and the other an failure, the difference matters little to the Ukrainian people. For one year and a half now, their have endured the pain and hardship. They will not abandon their fellow countrymen in the occupied territory.
And their ongoing suffering is being felt more and more widely by the day.
