Some analysts blame the West, particularly NATO expansion, for provoking the Russian reaction and the Ukraine War. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has sparked a broad international debate, arguing that Russia acted because the West directly threatened its security and vital interests. This theory ignores Moscow’s strong responsibility, Putin’s ideology and his desire to change the international order. In this context, Latin America, which would also be affected by the consequences of the conflict, should decide once and for all which side it is on.
There was never a real threat to Russian security
Between 1999 and 2004, NATO expanded to include several countries in the former Soviet sphere of influence. Russia objected, but accepted, as the new members did not share an extensive border with Russia, and Moscow was in a weakened position. The point of no return would be reached in 2008, with the NATO summit in Bucharest. The final declaration stated that in the future Georgia and Ukraine would become members of NATO.
Russia’s fears were unfounded. The Bucharest Declaration supported the future request of Ukraine and Georgia, but also emphasized the need to discuss outstanding issues. France and Germany stopped the initiative precisely so as not to alarm Russia. In fact, NATO never offered Georgia and Ukraine a membership plan and its formal process never started.
In 2020, NATO recognized Ukraine as an “enhancing opportunity partner”. This allows for regular policy consultations, information exchange, interoperability platforms and joint exercises. Finland, a member country of the European Union and which shares a direct border with Russia, enjoys the same status. Finland also has an army of 180,000 and regularly buys military equipment from the United States. Should we expect a Russian invasion of Finland? Let’s hope not.
Broken promises and violated treaties
At the 2007 Munich security conference, President Putin explicitly referred to the alleged NATO non-enlargement guarantees offered in 1990 by then NATO Secretary General Wörner. However, the words quoted by Putin were taken out of context and referred only to German reunification.
In 1990, in exchange for the unification of the two Germanys, Gorbachev obtained an informal guarantee of non-expansion from NATO. Diplomatic documents reveal that between 1990 and 1991, US President George H. Bush, Kohl of Germany, Mitterrand of France and Major of the United Kingdom assured Gorbachev and his Foreign Minister Shevardnadze that there would be no NATO expansion.
The West’s version is that these guarantees referred to the Soviet Union and could not be applied to Russia in later years. It is a perhaps somewhat improvised justification, but it is accepted by some analysts, as well as by Shevardnadze himself. In any case, would that be enough to explain the invasion of Ukraine thirty-two years later?
Putin violated the treaties signed by the Russian Federation on Ukraine. In 1994, with the Budapest Memorandum, in exchange for ceding the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal to Russia, Moscow pledged to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and borders, as well as to refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine. Ukraine. Russia has not fulfilled any of its commitments.
Russian Revisionism and Complex Causes
It is not NATO activism that explains Russia’s war in Ukraine, but the way Putin has gradually decided to oppose it, within a broader conception of revisionism and redefinition of the Western-led liberal international order.
Russian analysts confirm this argument. Andrey Sushentsov of the Foreign Ministry’s Institute for International Studies notes that with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the era of Russia’s search for its place in the Western-centric world is over. Sergei Karaganov of the Moscow Defense and Foreign Policy Council speaks of a Russian strategy of “using various foreign policy instruments, including military ones” and of replacing the current Euro-Atlantic security system with a Eurasian one.
Foreign Minister Lavrov attacked the liberal order and accused the West of arrogate to itself a self-perpetuating right to reshape “undemocratic” countries according to Western standards, a position he called “imperial and neocolonial”. International relations, he added, are undergoing fundamental changes and the era of Western domination is coming to an end.
But the alleged threats to Russia are not in the realm of military security, but in the realm of values. The spread of democracy, individual rights and respect for the law undermine Russia’s autocratic order. Russian elites would do well to ask themselves why so many countries yearn for a future closer to the West and free from Moscow.
Latin America is part of the West
The consequences of a long-term conflict in Ukraine would significantly affect Latin America. The cost of raw materials and food worldwide will increase, impacting the price of manufactured products that Latin America imports. The European acceleration towards a green energy and economy will have global impacts, both economically and politically. The United States and Europe will look for reliable and stable allies, and Latin America will have to define its place between the West and autocratic countries.
Latin America is historically and culturally part of the West. Continental leaders emphasize shared values with the US and Europe, such as democracy, respect for human rights and international law. But when it comes to action, the region is divided. In the resolutions condemning Russian aggression at the UN and the OAS, some Latin American countries abstained, thus denying their own values in favor of convenient ideological postures and possible economic and political returns.
The occasion is ripe to resume a fairer and more advantageous relationship with the West and to balance China’s growing political, economic and ideological influence, the consequences of which remain dubious.
future scenarios
The West would do well to seek rapprochement with Moscow after a just peace in Ukraine. The Kremlin would be an important partner in managing the situation in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and in the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, Russia would be a key ally to contain China if it became more revisionist and assertive. Indeed, Beijing’s caution towards Ukraine could portend tensions in Taiwan.
It is time to rethink deeply. The West should put an end to the rhetoric of decadence and “harsh criticism” and enhance coherence between the values it embodies and its actions. Latin America, in turn, should act accordingly with the values it proclaims. It would have to take a joint position on the side of those who defend these values and not flirt with those who undermine them. Values shape long-term interests.
