I’ve been thinking about the crisis in the Ukraine, as Russia seemingly threatens military incursion with a goal of protecting themselves against NATO expansion and preserving their strategically important naval base in Crimea. This has been an ongoing source of tension ever since the fragmentation of the former Soviet Union and the steady increase in NATO members from the western part of the old Soviet bloc. NATO was formed specifically to protect western Europe from Soviet aggressiveness, when it annexed much of eastern Europe after World War II. It justified those annexations because of prior invasions by France and then Germany over literally centuries. Russia wanted a buffer zone. At that time, in post-World War II politics, Russia also wanted to expand its form of autocratic, forced communism. Things have changed in that Russia isn’t necessarily desiring to export its form of government any longer. But it still feels insecure with more and more countries joining NATO, whose purpose is to oppose Russian expansion of influence and possible military aggression.
There are four strategies of constructively resolving conflict, each of which is suitable for different conditions. Avoidance is the first method, often used out of habit and by default, not for good reasons. In the case of the current situation in Ukraine, that is not a wise move; things won’t get better on their own. And it hasn’t worked anyway. Maintenance of conflict, the second option, is not tenable either, because when opposing parties increase the tension between them, like what’s happening now, it doesn’t take much to destabilize that tension, such that it trips into open fighting. That’s what everyone is afraid of currently, i.e., unintentional collapse of the stable tension into a shooting war.
The last two options are reduction and engagement. Reduction is often a brilliant solution, comprised of allowing the other party to “win”, when there is essentially nothing to lose by doing so. That is not possible in this case, because forbidding Ukraine from ever joining NATO would essentially be the same as allowing Russia to annex that country in all practical terms, without having to actually invade.
Engagement is moving closer to one’s antagonist while increasing energy, intensity and focus, with the goal of finding a mutually agreeable resolution that allows both parties to achieve their individual objectives. While it may seem impossible, it also might be simple.
I have a suggestion for a solution. Why don’t we invite Russia to join NATO?
By doing so, Russia would receive the benefit of protection from any threats originating external to NATO, and would commit to protecting their NATO partners in return. There would be joint military engagement and a cross-pollination of cultures and common economic interests that would greatly reduce the odds of future conflicts between the member countries. Russia would thus receive its needed security, and so would everyone else in NATO. Russia would keep its naval base in Crimea without having to defend it against NATO. All the missiles now pointed in both directions would be unnecessary. Economic sanctions would no longer be necessary. Mutual efforts to destabilize or impede each other would be harmful to both Russia and the rest of NATO.
What’s the downside of offering this option? Anyone…?