A few days ago the Guardian ran an article by Bernie Sanders entitled \u201cWe must do everything possible to avoid an enormously destructive war in Ukraine.\u201d He\u2019s certainly right about that – no reasonable person would disagree. And he correctly names the culprit in the current crisis: Vladimir Putin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Bernie adds that he is worried about \u201cthe familiar drumbeats in Washington, the bellicose rhetoric that gets amplified before every war, demanding that we must \u2018show strength, \u2018get tough\u2019 and not engage in \u2018appeasement\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I disagree. Showing strength and getting tough are not terrible strategies for dealing with bullies, be they school-yard toughs or nuclear-armed aggressor states. And \u201cappeasement\u201d was not a good strategy back in 1938, and it\u2019s not a good strategy today.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRussian leaders,\u201d he writes, \u201cmade clear their concerns about the prospect of former Soviet states becoming part of Nato and positioning hostile military forces along Russia\u2019s border.\u201d In Bernie\u2019s view, \u201cthey are still legitimate concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thirty years ago, when the USSR broke up, two things happened almost immediately. Every single one of the 15 constituent Soviet republics declared independence from Russia. And nearly all of those who could, applied to join NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever \u201clegitimate\u201d security concerns Russia might have had then (and now) are surely eclipsed the legitimate security concerns of those former Soviet republics. Those states, based on their own histories, are terrified of Russian attack and desperate for European and American support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the first to join NATO were the three Baltic republics, tiny states that could not defend themselves against the twin horrors of Hitler\u2019s Third Reich and Stalin\u2019s Soviet empire. The idea that Russia is somehow threatened by these states is absurd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Russia, he writes, has \u201can interest in the security policies of its neighbours\u201d \u2014 meaning, presumably, a veto over which collective security agreements they might sign up to, such as NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Countries, he writes, \u201cshould be free to make their own foreign policy choices, but making those choices wisely requires a serious consideration of the costs and benefits.\u201d In other words, Ukraine in principal can look to Europe and the United States as potential allies, but they should think twice about this. There could be \u201ccosts\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maybe it\u2019s time for Bernie and those who share this view to be given a short history lesson themselves \u2014 especially about NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n NATO was founded with the strong support of the British Labour government in April 1949. Social democratic and labour parties across Europe have long supported its existence. A powerful case can made that the collective security NATO provided ensured a peaceful end to the Cold War. Nearly all the countries that share a border with Russia understand this, and that is why they all clamour to join the alliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There should be no \u201ccosts\u201d for sovereign states like Ukraine or Georgia when they want to join NATO. It is not only their right, but it makes sense for them. Putin\u2019s threats confirm this every day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bottom line is we must do everything possible to prevent an aggressive Russian war in Europe. That means not repeating bits of Putin\u2019s propaganda about the \u201cthreat\u201d posted by states like Ukraine and Georgia.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n