Not one inch

Both the Russian invasions were somehow triggered by the United States

The writer is a political analyst. Email: imran.jan@gmail.com. Twitter @Imran_Jan

The Russians had been providing assurances that there was no plan to invade Ukraine.

And then it happened.

Similarly, back in 1990, there were verbal assurances from the United States to the Soviet Union that Nato would not expand one inch to the east of Germany if the Soviets allowed the unification of Germany. Once Germany was unified, the United States immediately moved much more than one inch to the east and right into Russia’s neighborhood, enlisting 14 new countries making a mockery of that verbal promise made to Mikhail Gorbachev’s Russia.

The western media may spin this any way they like since there was no formally written agreement to that end but to the Russians this is a great deal and a further proof of what the Russians view as an unreliable and untrustworthy America. It fuels the Russian feelings of being betrayed by a recalcitrant and international law defying America.

The last time Russia made a major full-scale invasion was that of Afghanistan on the eve of Christmas of 1979. Turns out, both the Russian invasions were somehow triggered by the United States. In the case of Afghanistan, America wanted to tame the Soviet bear by bleeding its economy. One certain way that was possible was to have it invade Afghanistan and be stuck in a mission creep. The case for this narrative was made flawlessly by Mark Adkin and Mohammad Yousaf in their impeccable book The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower.

Likewise, Russia felt threatened by American activities in its backyard, triggering Putin to invade Ukraine to prevent not only the enlisting of Ukraine into Nato but also to deny America a possible safe haven from which Russia’s legitimate security needs could be impacted. Crimea’s annexation in 2014 was fueled by the same fear.

The whines and complaints of the western media, however, are ridiculous and laughable. A little historic perspective would help. During World War II, Germany invaded Norway because the former feared that the latter would be invaded by Britain, an eventuality that could have impacted German security. Acting pre-emptively for its self-defence, Nazi Germany committed a war crime for which the Nazis were punished at the Nuremberg Trials. Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, had said, “The record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

Fast forward, the United States invaded Iraq acting in pre-emptive self-defence. It made the case on completely false pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that an Al-Qaeda linked Saddam was going to attack the United States using those very weapons. The world now knows that none of that was true. Justice Jackson would be dismayed to know that the poison chalice was not put to the American lips.

Similarly Putin, citing his country’s security interests, justified invading Ukraine. The western media pundits cum jokers, or in reverse order if you’d prefer that, are making noise about Russia’s violation of international law. Let us not forget this is the same journalism, both print and broadcast, which helped sell the American people the invasion of Iraq by spinning sophisticatedly crafted stories created out of thin air. The western media as well as the western governments do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to criticising another nation’s aggression or other less severe violations of international laws. America may have skipped the poison chalice but not the bitter taste of its own medicine.

As for how sacrosanct Nato’s article 5 is, here is a quick perspective: to fight against terrorism, western nations invaded weak nations. To fight against the Russian aggression, the reflexive western response is sanctions. Nations only tend to fight winnable wars. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine once again proves that Nato’s promise of collective defence is as credible as was the promise of not moving one inch to the east.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 26th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Load Next Story