So now that we've defined realpolitik, let's quickly break down the realpolitik here for the Americans in the room (that is, the pragmatic facts of the situation divorced from their ethical weight). This is a very very high level overview for the young people who are all of a sudden getting a crash course in Eastern European politics. Throughout this post, "we" and "our" is going to refer to Americans.
1. NATO is our military alliance with Western Europe. Ukraine is not a NATO member. That means we actually have no legal, diplomatic responsibility to directly help Ukraine in any way.
2. Why is Ukraine not a NATO member? I mean, a little because they're a young democracy without a great track record vis a vis corruption, but the real reason is that Russia didn't want them to be a member.
3. Why would Russia not want Ukraine to be a NATO member? So that they could threaten to invade them. Yeah, like...it's a military alliance. That's literally why.
4. Did we think they'd do it? No. Was that complacent of us? Oh, yeah.
5. Did they think they'd do it? Probably for most of the past 30 years also no? Having the threat available was a way for Russia to influence Ukraine's politics. They didn't necessarily need to use it...except that Ukraine has steadily moved closer and closer to the Western sphere of influence in spite of that threat.
6. Why does Russia want Ukraine in its sphere of influence? TOO COMPLEX A QUESTION TO GET INTO HERE. I'll make a whole post about this if you want me to. The simplest and largest factor is this:
I mean...where else are you going to invade Russia from? Russia is a country profoundly preoccupied with its own physical security from Europe (for, historically, very good reason).
7. So why are the NATO countries talking about this invasion at all, if Ukraine isn't an alliance member? Remember, this is about realpolitik - obviously we should help, because this war is unjust, and Ukrainians are human beings. But this is strictly a conversation about the pragmatic political reality of the situation.
8. Well, we've just learned that Russia is, in fact, willing to use military force to expand its borders. Take another look at that map. If Russia controls Kaliningrad & Ukraine, & has military outposts all over Belarus (they have military outposts in Belarus btw), the "front" for any potential future Russian aggression is enormous. Defensively, this is a nightmare for Europe.
9. "What's Kaliningrad?" Glad you asked. It's a tiny piece of beautiful Baltic land that contains 95% of the world's amber, for some reason! It's also a massive Russian military installation from which Russia can launch missiles into the rest of Europe. It's essentially impregnable. And it's separated from Russian-friendly Belarus by a tiny, 60 km-wide strip of border between Poland and Lithuania called "the Suwalki Corridor" or "the Suwalki Gap."
10. To put that another way: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia - 3 former-SSRs (that's Soviet Socialist Republics, meaning that they are former Soviet states that conservatives within Russia also see as part of its rightful sphere of influence) who are NATO members are only connected to the rest of NATO by the Suwalki Corridor. Meaning that if Russia takes that corridor, there is no longer any way to reinforce the Baltics by land...and any naval reinforcement would have to go past Kaliningrad to reach them.
11. "So we're worried about Ukraine - from a realpolitik perspective obviously, we as in human beings are worried about Ukraine because people live there and this is terrible - we as in NATO are worried about Ukraine because a Russian-occupied Ukraine would allow Russia to turn its attention to closing the Suwalki gap and going after the Baltic states, who are our allies?"
12. Yeah.
13. "I hate to even say this, but we're talking realpolitik right?? like this is a safe space to ask bottom-line questions about the pragmatic political reality of this situation without anyone calling me a monster?? ...why do we care about the Baltics?"
14. Yes, this is a safe space and you are not a monster, and I do not think you don't care about Estonian or Latvian or Lithuanian lives for asking the question. We (Americans) may not care about the Baltics !!from the perspective of strict pragmatism!! in and of themselves. But if we fail to defend the Baltics, that means that NATO, categorically, cannot defend its allies. If Russia can take the Baltics...why not Poland? Why not Greece? Why not France?
15. "That sounds insanely alarmist. Would it ever come to that?" You'd love to say no! You'd love to say that's crazy. But people were saying it was crazy to think Russia would actually physically invade Ukraine until the morning it happened. A military alliance like NATO exists to be paranoid. The best deterrent to violence - the best way to make sure this never happens, if Russia has decided to operate by the principles of realpolitik, rather than moral or ideological principles - is if Russia knows that any military action against NATO would fail. Do I think Russia would ever invade France? Like, no, that's stupid, but also, what the fuck do I know?
16. "But...okay, again, safe space - why do we, Americans, care about any of this? I'm not in Europe." Fair question! And American involvement in NATO is something that was hotly debated at the end of WW2. In fact the first Secretary General of NATO was quoted as saying that the purpose of the NATO alliance was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" - meaning, NATO needed America more than America needed NATO, then and now. Thanks to our geographic isolation, Americans do not need to worry about wars of territorial expansion. We can worry about nukes, but that's not about territorial expansion. And there's not a lot NATO could do to stop a nuke.
17. What we're really talking about, when we talk about what America gets out of being in NATO, is America's sphere of influence. Western Europe is - sometimes through clenched teeth - pretty much obliged to play nice with America, because they've....uhhh, essentially outsourced a lot of their physical defense to our military? I'm gonna get angry messages for saying that, but a spade's a spade. And European cooperation is great for our economy, our quality of life, and our bargaining power on the world stage with less-friendly actors.
18. "So we care (IN THE REALPOLITIK SENSE) about the invasion of Ukraine...because it proves Russia is willing to engage in wars of territorial expansion...and opens the door to Russia moving on the Baltic states by closing the Suwalki gap...which would weaken (or even cause the collapse of) the NATO alliance...which would lead to an isolated and weakened America, surrounded by more hostile actors which are emboldened to act against it?" look we're oversimplifying a lot, here? But...yeah, that's a solid takeaway.
19. "So why don't we just...directly help Ukraine?" Baby, you want to launch an unprovoked military attack against Russia? Remember: Ukraine is not our ally! Russia has not legally, diplomatically attacked us or one of our allies! We might hate what they're doing, but they have not been aggressive at us.
That's how you get World War 3. Attacking Russia is not gonna help. Everybody calm down.
20. "So that's why we're doing sanctions instead?" Yes. That's why we're doing sanctions instead. As for what's next...we're going to have to wait and see.
