PDF Summary:How the West Brought War to Ukraine, by Benjamin Abelow

In How the West Brought War to Ukraine, Benjamin Abelow presents a controversial perspective on the causes of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He argues that a series of provocations originating from Western countries towards Russia—including NATO expansion, withdrawal from nuclear treaties, and military exercises near Russia's borders—established the foundation for war.

Abelow contends that, despite warnings from experts, the US and allies escalated tensions by disregarding Russia's security concerns. He suggests the conflict stems primarily from the West's conduct and calls for re-examining the dominant narrative blaming Russia alone for the unrest.

(continued)...

The writer highlights the hypocrisy of Western nations, which are quick to denounce military operations near their own territories, yet have steadily encroached upon the borders of Russia. He argues that this deceit underscores a significant flaw in the diplomatic approaches used by Western nations, which has been a key factor in intensifying the current conflict.

Should Russia establish a defense alliance with Canada and deploy missiles near the US border, it is likely that the United States would respond swiftly and with significant force.

Abelow encourages the audience to contemplate a scenario where Russia mirrors the strategic military actions undertaken by NATO and its partners. This hypothetical situation, he suggests, would be met with immediate and forceful resistance.

The perception of Russian strategies as a considerable threat could lead the United States to preemptively launch an attack, justifying it as a protective action.

The writer argues that if Russia attempts to station its military units near the borders of the United States, even under the guise of forming a defensive alliance, such a move would probably be seen as aggressive and might elicit a strong military response, potentially leading to a preemptive attack. This speculative situation, highlighted by Abelow, reveals the fundamental inconsistencies and deep-seated biases that are critical to the international policy strategies embraced by Western countries.

The United States and its allies have demonstrated an inconsistency in upholding the values they promote, revealing a double standard in their diplomatic dealings involving Russia.

Abelow underscores the West's lack of recognition regarding its role in intensifying hostilities, which arises from a contradictory double standard. He contends that such duplicity has obstructed the path to a peaceful settlement and increased the likelihood of a more extensive confrontation.

Other Perspectives

• The concept of double standards is subjective and can be viewed through different geopolitical lenses; what one nation perceives as a double standard, another may see as a necessary security measure.
• The Monroe Doctrine was a historical policy that may not directly reflect current US foreign policy or its stance on international military deployments.
• The presence of US and NATO troops near Russia's borders can be seen as a part of international security arrangements agreed upon by sovereign nations within NATO, rather than an act of aggression.
• NATO's eastward expansion was in response to the voluntary applications of sovereign states seeking membership for their security concerns, rather than an unprovoked strategy to threaten Russia.
• The hypothetical scenario of Russia establishing a defense alliance with Canada is implausible given Canada's long-standing membership in NATO and its close ties with the United States.
• The United States' potential response to foreign military presence near its borders could be consistent with standard international relations theory, which posits that states act to preserve their security and sovereignty.
• Preemptive action, if ever considered by the United States, would likely be subject to intense scrutiny and debate, reflecting the complex nature of international law and the need for legitimate self-defense.
• The assertion of inconsistency in Western diplomacy could overlook the complexities of international relations, where policies must adapt to changing global dynamics and threats.
• The criticism of Western actions may not fully account for the security concerns of countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, which have historical reasons to seek closer ties with NATO.
• The argument about Western double standards may not consider Russia's own foreign policy actions and how they have contributed to the security concerns of its neighbors and the international community.

The geopolitical fallout emerged as a result of the United States retracting its commitment to arms control accords.

Abelow examines the wider consequences stemming from the United States' retreat from essential arms control pacts, highlighting that the effects of such moves extend far beyond the immediate implications linked to the agreement itself.

The United States' decision to exit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has heightened concerns about a possible revival of the nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia.

The writer emphasizes the pivotal moment marked by the collapse of the 2019 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. He argues that the United States, using alleged violations by Russia as justification, essentially dismantled a key part of the infrastructure established to control nuclear armaments.

The United States' decision to withdraw from the agreement, coupled with allegations of Russian violations, has increased the likelihood of deteriorating diplomatic relations with Russia and intensified the potential for a heightened nuclear confrontation.

Abelow contends that this decision, rather than effectively addressing the alleged violations, has instead created a more volatile and unpredictable security environment. The author warns that this instability increases the risk of miscalculations, which could result in a scenario where nuclear weapons may be used.

Russia's attempts to open dialogue for fresh agreements on weapons limitations or to propose pauses in missile placements that could benefit both sides have been overlooked by the United States, which has instead chosen to focus on the potential strategic gains from novel missile technologies.

He underscores that the United States prioritized developing and deploying advanced missile systems instead of genuinely seeking to salvage or replace the INF Treaty via diplomatic negotiations. He argues that this approach signifies a return to a mindset common in an era marked by significant geopolitical rivalry among leading nations, thus putting at risk the prospects for subsequent treaties on arms reduction.

Russia's apprehensions about a possible first-strike by American forces were intensified following the United States' withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.

The author highlights that Russia's feeling of being exposed grew stronger after the United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, and posits that the American quest for a global missile shield exacerbated Russia's apprehensions about a potential first-strike by the U.S.

The positioning of the Aegis system, which can accommodate both defensive and offensive weaponry, near Russia's frontiers, has heightened Russian apprehensions about a possible first-strike attack from the U.S.

Abelow underscores that the deployment of the Aegis Ashore system, which has the potential to be equipped with offensive arms, heightens the concerns harbored by Russia. He emphasizes that, as perceived by Russia, the progression of the United States in certain military capabilities coupled with its history of involvement in armed conflicts creates a potential scenario in which a preemptive nuclear attack might be contemplated.

The warnings from Russia have often sparked disputes due to American actions, but these have been consistently disregarded by officials from the United States.

Abelow criticizes Western leaders for their persistent disregard of the concerns expressed by the Russian government. He argues that the continuous neglect of Russia's perspective on security has fueled a dangerous cycle of mistrust and animosity.

Other Perspectives

• The United States may argue that its withdrawal from arms control treaties is a response to non-compliance by other parties, which undermines the treaties' effectiveness.
• It could be argued that the potential for a nuclear arms race is mitigated by the existence of other diplomatic channels and treaties that remain in place.
• Some analysts might contend that the U.S. withdrawal from certain treaties allows it to better counter emerging threats from other nations not party to the treaties, such as China.
• There is a perspective that the development of advanced missile systems by the U.S. is a necessary step in maintaining a strategic edge and ensuring national security in a changing global landscape.
• The U.S. might assert that the deployment of systems like Aegis Ashore is purely defensive and aimed at protecting allies and deterring aggression rather than enabling a first-strike capability.
• Officials from the United States might argue that they have not disregarded Russian warnings but have instead taken them into account within a broader strategic framework that seeks to balance deterrence with diplomatic engagement.
• Some might argue that the U.S. withdrawal from treaties like the ABM is a reflection of a strategic shift towards missile defense, which is a legitimate and defensive security measure.
• It could be posited that maintaining and modernizing nuclear arsenals is a necessary aspect of national defense in the face of evolving international threats, rather than an escalation towards confrontation.

The warnings ignored and the doubling down on failed policies

Abelow laments that despite clear warnings from many experts, the strategists responsible for the U.S. policy towards Russia and Ukraine continued to overlook the facts, choosing instead to escalate their dedication to the strategies that culminated in the present chaos. He emphasizes the overlooked chances for achieving a peaceful resolution through negotiation.

Despite cautions from esteemed experts in American international relations regarding the possibility of disastrous outcomes stemming from NATO's expansion, such advice went unheeded.

The author highlights the apprehension within certain segments of the US diplomatic corps regarding the significant consequences that could arise from the expansion of NATO. He emphasizes the decision by the United States to overlook these warnings, choosing a path of confrontation over one of reconciliation.

Experts had anticipated that NATO's enlargement might provoke an adverse response from Russia and increase the likelihood of conflict, but the warnings were ignored by decision-makers.

Abelow cites the mastermind behind the containment policy of the Soviet Union in the Cold War era, warning that expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could lead to a grave error, possibly reigniting Cold War-era hostilities and obstructing the chance to cultivate a cooperative relationship with Russia. John Mearsheimer, a prominent figure in political science, has made it clear that Western attempts to integrate Ukraine could provoke a significant response from Russia.

Even experts known for their stringent views, such as Fiona Hill, acknowledge that the expansion of NATO has intensified the crisis, although the dominant perspective blames Russia.

The author emphasizes that certain outspoken analysts, such as Fiona Hill, have acknowledged the expansion of NATO as a contributing element to the heightened strain with Moscow. However, he laments that such recognitions have not altered the dominant perspective, which frequently depicts the actions born from the nation's leader's aggressive and expansionist ambitions as solely representative of the country as a whole.

Rather than acknowledging the flaws in their approaches, U.S. and European leaders are escalating their actions to undermine Russia's military strength and might even contemplate prompting a leadership shift within the Russian government.

Abelow criticizes Western policymakers for their failure to acknowledge their mistakes, persisting in promoting a story that solely blames Russia for the conflict. He argues that such unwavering reluctance to reassess their approach may prolong the strife and jeopardize the establishment of a durable and peaceful security structure across Europe.

The Biden administration, in collaboration with Congress, has allocated more than $100 billion to bolster Ukraine's military strength, aiming to weaken Russia's military effectiveness, despite the potential of this action to heighten the chances of a nuclear confrontation.

He underscores the commitment of Western nations to erode the military capabilities of Russia, evidenced by their supply of military aid to Ukraine exceeding $100 billion, even though it could escalate the hostilities. The author warns that this approach might lead to a protracted conflict, with the peril of a catastrophic confrontation that includes NATO troops and Russia.

The approach of seeking to dominate and humiliate Russia has been met with disapproval for escalating the situation and increasing the likelihood of catastrophic outcomes.

Abelow argues that aiming to deal a devastating strike that might trigger a change among Russia's governing class carries significant peril. He argues that when backed into a corner without any honorable avenues for reducing tensions, Russia is more likely to escalate the conflict substantially.

Other Perspectives

• NATO's expansion is a reflection of the sovereign decisions of independent nations seeking collective security, and not necessarily a provocation towards Russia.
• The decision to ignore warnings about NATO expansion may have been based on a broader strategic calculus that prioritizes long-term security and democratic values over short-term geopolitical concerns.
• The dominant perspective that blames Russia may be based on evidence of its actions in Ukraine, which are seen as violations of international law and sovereignty.
• U.S. and European leaders may believe that their actions are not escalations but responses to aggression, and that acknowledging mistakes could weaken their negotiating position.
• The allocation of funds to Ukraine's military could be viewed as support for a nation's right to self-defense and sovereignty, rather than an attempt to weaken Russia.
• The approach of imposing costs on Russia for its actions could be argued as a necessary means to uphold international norms and deter further aggression.

The importance of narrative in shaping outcomes and attributing responsibility

The final chapters of Abelow's work call for a comprehensive reevaluation of the dominant narrative surrounding the conflict, emphasizing the importance of understanding the historical context in which this turmoil unfolds. Abelow suggests that the primary responsibility for the current crisis lies significantly with the West.

Western discourse frequently portrays the Russian state and its leader, Vladimir Putin, as illogical entities fixated on territorial expansion, blaming them solely for the turmoil in Ukraine without taking into account the historical context and the security concerns of Russia.

Abelow scrutinizes the often oversimplified and misleading depiction of the conflict, which is typically embraced from a Western standpoint. He contends that describing Putin merely as an expansionist aggressor does not take into account the complex historical context and ignores the real security concerns that Russia has consistently voiced.

This narrative has enabled policymakers to justify aggressive actions against Russia, such as intensifying military assistance and enforcing economic sanctions, without considering the potential consequences.

He argues that such a reductive narrative has been constructed to justify the aggressive responses of Western nations. The portrayal of the conflict in clear terms, presenting Ukraine as entirely innocent and Russia as the provocateur, helps to garner support for increased military aid, the imposition of harsh economic sanctions, and the censure of those who question this narrative.

However, this account conflicts with the insights and cautions from many specialists in international relations, who acknowledge that initiatives and tactics that emerged in Western countries played a role in intensifying the circumstances.

Abelow contrasts the dominant narrative with perspectives and early warnings from experienced specialists in international relations, who anticipated the current unrest long before it unfolded. He argues that the persistent dismissal of alternative perspectives, often labeled as appeasing or sympathetic to Russian interests, has led to a dangerous homogeneity in the thinking of Western decision-makers, resulting in a significant misjudgment of Russia's response to Western actions.

The unrest in Ukraine seems to primarily stem from the conduct of the United States and its allies in Europe, considering the complex aspects of the circumstances.

Abelow recognizes the intricate task of identifying the parties responsible for the conflict. He emphasizes that an impartial analysis of historical events unmistakably reveals the substantial role played by the West, especially the United States, in precipitating the present conflict. He argues that the consistent disregard for Russia's defense concerns by Western nations, along with their failure to engage in diplomacy and their approach of encircling Russia with military might, led to circumstances where war was almost inevitable.

The roots of the chaos and devastation caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine stem from a sequence of Western policies that neglected to take into account the concerns Russia had regarding its own safety.

Abelow contends that the considerable distress inflicted by Russian military operations, undeniably violating global humanitarian standards, can be viewed as a response to an extended series of instigations initiated by Western nations. He contends that portraying the incursion as an entirely unprovoked assault fails to acknowledge the role of Western actions in escalating tensions that laid the groundwork for the conflict.

Had the strategy employed not placed Russia in a challenging predicament, the intensity of the conflict in Ukraine might have been lessened or potentially prevented.

Abelow argues that the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine was preventable. He suggests that by engaging in diplomatic dialogue that recognized and addressed the security concerns of Russia, while also identifying mutually acceptable protections, the current conflict could potentially have been prevented. The disaster that unfolded within Ukraine's borders highlights the critical need for prudent leadership, clear dialogue, and the creation of a security infrastructure in Europe and beyond that is equitable and all-encompassing.

Other Perspectives

• The historical context is complex, and while it is important, it does not absolve any party of their actions; responsibility may be shared rather than lying "significantly with the West."
• It is possible to acknowledge Russia's security concerns while also critiquing its actions; the two are not mutually exclusive.
• The narrative of Western aggression could be balanced with the recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty and the international principle of non-interference.
• Some specialists in international relations support the sanctions and military assistance as necessary measures to uphold international law and deter further aggression.
• The role of the United States and its allies can be seen as a response to perceived threats rather than the primary cause of unrest.
• The invasion of Ukraine by Russia could be viewed as a violation of international law, regardless of the preceding Western policies.
• The escalation of tensions may also be attributed to actions taken by Russia, such as military buildups and previous engagements in neighboring countries.
• Diplomatic dialogue is a two-way street, and the failure to prevent conflict may also reflect on Russia's willingness to engage in such dialogue.
• The idea that the conflict could have been lessened or prevented with different strategies does not consider the possibility that the conflict may have been a strategic choice by Russia independent of Western actions.