by Emma Crasnitchi
American Values and the War in Ukraine
More than 150 years ago, in his novel War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy described war as “an event … contrary to human reason and to the whole of human nature.” How is it possible then, that in our civilized time, where there are internationally agreed-upon norms, an event so contradictory to our societal values as the war in Ukraine occurred?
Was everything done to avoid the war, or does it represent a failure in American foreign policy and diplomacy in the post-Soviet territory? Or are we, perhaps, witnessing the beginning of something much more significant that is going to reconstruct the world and redistribute power?
The United States has supported Ukraine in pursuing Western democratic values for many years. And today, amidst the bloody conflict with Russia, America and European countries are helping Ukraine resist its aggressor. American assistance amounts to more than one hundred billion dollars in the form of weapons, military equipment, training, and refugee assistance.
During the more than two years since the war began, many thousands of adults and children were killed, injured, or deported from Ukraine to Russia. The deportation of children has led the International Criminal Court in Hague to issue a warrant for the arrest of Russian President Putin for alleged war crimes.
The United States’ main goal in international policy consists of promoting the values of freedom, equality, and democracy abroad. America firmly believes that the best form of government is a representative democracy with freedom of elections and the protection of human rights. These standards are upheld by the State Department around the world, and the American government supports all countries seeking to establish these principles because only free, democratic states can be reliable partners in political and economic spheres. Therefore, America supported Ukraine when it expressed its desire to free itself from Russian influence – with its corrupt state figures and arbitrary authorities and judiciary system – and follow Western values of freedom, democracy, and tolerance.
Russian Perspectives on the War
However, in Russia, this desire was considered a betrayal of a very close relative, and indignant propaganda speeches about the depraved values of the immoral and “Godless West” rushed onto Russian TV screens. The main trump card in Putin’s convincing speeches to the Russian people comprised of his idea that NATO expansion posed a threat to the ‘Motherland,’ which must be defended before it was too late. (Putin comes from the former Soviet KGB and fears a unipolar world ruled by the US. He believes that NATO has a plan against Russia and wants to break Russia apart.) He understood that Ukraine was getting ready to join NATO and he used this fact to arouse Russian citizens and build popular support for the war. Recalling NATO’s verbal assurances in the early 1990s about NATO’s non-expansion to the east, Putin threatened to take adequate and mirrored measures if Russia was endangered. He has managed to brainwash a lot of Russians and gain their support.
Russia implemented these threats by attacking Ukraine. In Russia, supporters of the war and President Putin accused America of inciting hostility between the once kindred peoples and alleged that Ukrainian “nationalism” ignores the two countries’ common centuries-old history and values. In ancient Russian folklore, Russian epic heroes inevitably went to save Kyiv – the mother of Russian cities. And even today, when Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine, in Russia, Ukrainian lands are treated as their historical homeland. The interweaving of the history of Ukraine and Russia goes back a millennium.
In Russia, almost everyone had close relatives in Ukraine. The idea that Ukraine needs to be “saved” is used by Putin and his cohorts. Putin intends to suppress Ukrainian democracy and establish a “puppet regime” under an old, highly centralized, Soviet influence.
However, many experts say that this war is between the United States and Russia. The turning point in the relations between Washington and Moscow was the 43rd Annual Conference on Security Policy in Munich on Feb. 10, 2007, where Putin made a speech critiquing the unipolarity of the world. In this notorious speech Putin states, “we are legitimately entitled to openly ask against whom this expansion is being carried out” when analyzing NATO’s expansion East. This speech served as a warning to the United States and NATO countries that Russia’s patience about NATO intrusion was thinning. In his speech, Putin also noted the “hyper-use of military force in international relations,” especially regarding a unipolar force: the United States. He condemned the fact that the world was governed by one sovereign power and contended that a single center of authority would lead to the degradation of safety in the world. His disapproval of US power is evident in his notion that the United States is “dominating” the world.
The numerous Color revolutions have also reinforced Putin’s negative attitude toward American foreign policy. Color revolutions are associated with anti-regime movements, created to overthrow a dictatorship. In fact, as CSIS states, “Russian military officers now tied the term “Color Revolution” to the crisis in Ukraine and to what they saw as a new United States and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties.” Putin has increasingly tightened the laws in Russia regarding non-governmental organizations and foreign agents. He believes that social media garners extremist ideologies in youth.
Responsibility for the War
Can one say that the State Department underestimated its enemy – a man who was brought up by the Soviet system, the Communist Party, and the KGB – a man with a team of his own kind, insatiable in their desire to enrich themselves at the expense of the countless resources of their country, which they completely control? They understand that there is no turning back; they must go all the way. There are different answers to this question.
The United States could not have turned a blind eye to such a breach of international law. It also sees Ukraine as a valuable potential partner. The “State Partnership Program,” “Uniting for Ukraine,” “European Democratic Resilience Initiative,” and many more assistance enterprises lessened the military, humanitarian, and economic effects of the war on Ukraine and its citizens. However, the large number of atrocities in the Eastern European region begs the question of whether the American Foreign Service was successful in achieving its goals of helping Ukraine with a peaceful transition to democracy. To be sure, countries with developed economies with deep democratic roots – the countries of the European Union and, of course, the United States of America- bear great responsibility for dealing with and resolving world problems. If a country does not participate in dealing with these global problems, solutions will be found without regard to the interests of the nonparticipating countries. Participation is key. Ultimately, however, the person who instigates the problem bears the greatest responsibility. It was Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine and his choice has led to horrid consequences for the entire world. The Department of State has done everything possible since 2014 (the annexation of Crimea) to avoid this bloodshed. Russia’s attack was aggressive and unprovoked, “despite impressive transatlantic solidarity … and …full awareness that the West would respond by imposing severe economic sanctions.” Harkening back to Soviet times, Putin pushed ambitions that will ultimately result in his demise.
Possible Solutions
A possible solution to the war in Ukraine could be making “actions in deterrence” clear. This means that we should ensure that Russia understands that the US does not intend to pose a threat to Russia in Ukraine if its troops are removed, although the everlasting possibility of Ukraine joining NATO will always be present.
During Putin’s interview with BBC’s David Frost about Russian membership, Putin’s question about the possibility of Russia joining NATO may have been misunderstood by the West. Yes, it may have sounded like a rhetorical question or a joke. However, it is also possible that Putin interpreted the tacit refusal to accept Russia into NATO as a conspiracy and a covert Western plan to destroy Russia. As was the case then, Putin may again be misinterpreting Western military assistance. Putin may fear that if he removes his forces from Ukraine, there may be a military threat against Russia, and he uses this to generate support for the War in his country.
One possible solution to the war, therefore, may be explaining the incentives of both sides clearly.
Additionally, the education of diplomats needs to be improved. Diplomats need to better understand the culture, societal relationships, and Ukrainian history to foster peace and maintain face-to-face dialogue. American diplomats must be more tactful while promoting American values, especially those that contradict some local traditional values and oppose century-old history with its neighbors. They should work to avoid mass conflicts and bloodshed by all possible means. The Ukraine conflict and such massive bloodshed could have been avoided if US diplomats had been better educated on the Russian-Ukraine historical ties and common societal values. Another solution revolves around the humanitarian aspect: all war events are to be frozen by the UN and world leaders should gather in one room to discuss possible answers, thereby stopping the killing. The fighting needs to be ceased. Innocent human lives are lost due to miscommunication and misunderstandings. As governments embark on solving this global conflict, collaboration needs to be altered to achieve amity among world powers. After all, “a bad peace is better than a good war.” Peace should be sought above all. Posterity relies on a world to live on, a world that will not exist if war continues.
Emma Crasnitchi is a senior at Langley High School in Virginia interested in economics, international development, and foreign policy. She has been published in the Journal of Student Research High School Edition, International Policy Digest, Modern Diplomacy, and the Curieux International Academic Journal.