Russia’s Casus Belli: Historical Parallels and Realities
Russia’s casus belli for war in Ukraine are numerous and Russia keeps promoting new ones as the war unfolds. The main ones leading up to the war were the genocide in separatist-held regions and NATO expansion threatening Russia. A couple of weeks ago, Russia added the development of WMDs in neighboring provinces as another reason the war is justified. Many of Russia’s casus belli that it has supported reeks of American foreign policy that we all have intimate knowledge of in the last 30 years.
Response to rebels/terrorists
Ukraine has been fighting Russian-backed rebels in eastern provinces since 2014. Putin has denied the allegations and used this fighting as a justification for war. Putin has gone so far as to consider the fighting between insurgents and the Ukrainian military to a genocide. This is precisely the language the US used to justify bombing Serbia in the 90s. What makes this parallel even more on the point is that the US and Russia have funded the rebels that caused the reaction that led to what both sides called a genocide.
First, let’s start with the US moving the mujahadeen to Kosovo to fight for independence. While civilian casualties are unavoidable when fighting insurgents like the mujahadeen, Serbia even admits to outright killing many civilians on purpose. This led to the intervention by America. NATO then made its ultimatum clear: allow NATO to occupy Kosovo. When this was obviously not allowed by the Serbian government, NATO could claim it tried diplomacy. With the casus belli set up and being able to claim it tried diplomacy, NATO set about its bombing campaign. This bombing campaign was brutal and killed many civilians.
Now we can move to the current day where Russia has done the same thing to justify its war against Ukraine. Many Russian volunteers and Chechens have been boosting the rebel ranks since the fighting in the Eastern provinces began. Russia also hired the Wagner Group, a mercenary company to fight in Ukraine. Ironically, Russia says it wanted to “denazify” Ukraine but used Wagner founded by Dmitry Utkin. Russia, just like America did in the 90s for the Bosnians, funded and armed the Ukrainian rebels.
As covered above, Putin has claimed there has been a genocide going on against the regions the separatists have been fighting in. This parallels America’s claims of genocide in Serbia without the evidence or admission by the perpetuating parties that America has been able to put forth as well as cross-examination by a third party as Russia is not neutral here. This may come to the fore in the future and would only make this analogy more spot on.
Finally, Putin has claimed this genocide was a casus bellis against Ukraine. It has also taken to bombing much of Ukrainian cities, much like America did to the Serbs. Only time will tell just how many civilians will be killed by Russian bombs and missiles.
Bioweapons
Russia has also claimed that WMDs were being developed in eastern Ukraine, particularly anthrax. The claim is that American-funded biolabs in Ukraine has been developing bioweapons. Putin has also claimed Ukraine was destroying evidence of this. All of these accusations and excuses for not providing evidence reek of what the US government accused Iraq of in the 00s. The US finally had to admit the WMDs it found were from an abandoned research program and I suspect that Russia will also have to walk back its bold accusations to something that was not a threat as well, even though Russia and America will continue to pretend that Iraq and Ukraine were threats to use WMDs.
Realities
Having dealt with the all too familiar spin for aggressive wars, let us turn to the casus belli that doesn’t have a direct American parallel but is itself worthy of examination.
NATO Expansion
The premise of NATO expansion eastwards being an existential threat to Russia relies on a few presuppositions. One of these is that NATO had promised a former Russian government that NATO would expand “not one inch” west of West Germany. This would mean the US and its allies didn’t keep a promise to Russia from the 90s, which was the basis of allowing the reunification of Germany to occur. Another is that NATO’s expansion eastwards endangers NATO militarily because Russia cannot defend itself if the battle lines are pushed from Western Germany to Eastern Poland. None of these presuppositions is true, even if Putin believes it is so.
Firstly, no representative of NATO has ever claimed NATO would never expand to the east. As the Daily Kos points out, the original promise was that non-German NATO troops would not set up bases in East Germany. Gorbachev, the person to who the promise was made, not only confirms that NATO didn’t promise that it wouldn’t expand eastwards, but confirmed that the promise that was made was kept by the West.
Odd that Russia would lie about a promise from the 90s when it is violating one now. In the 90s, Ukraine was asked to give up its nuclear arsenal. In exchange, Ukraine asked both America and Russia to guarantee its security. Not only has Russia abandoned that by poisoning presidential candidates and funding rebels in Ukraine, but Russia has now invaded Ukraine. That is the ultimate betrayal of a promise from the 90s from a country that supposedly very much cares about promises from the 90s. Anti-American activists have been pushing this narrative that America failing its promises is what led to the war in Ukraine, but the only promise America has failed here is to protect Ukraine from foreign aggressors. If such activists were consistent, they would be calling for America to fulfill this promise.
Secondly, NATO expansion eastwards doesn’t make Russia harder to defend as Russia’s defense never relied upon conventional warfare. As can be seen by the struggle Russia has had with invading a weak Ukraine, outdated Western infantry weapons have stopped Russian armored pushes into Ukraine. Russia also hasn’t been able to win the air war in several weeks, despite America doing it against what was considered a powerful regional power in Iraq in a matter of hours in the 90s. Iraq had the 6th largest airforce in the world when America invaded and America still knocked out its ability to respond to the invasion within hours, while doing so 30 years ago.
Russia is fighting against the same planes America did 30 years ago and cannot gain air superiority. American planes are much better than Soviet warplanes from the 70s, with the F22 being unrivaled by anything Russia has. Russia would badly lose an air war with the West. Western air dominance would hand a huge advantage to the West in any war.
A war between NATO and Russia would never amount to a conventional war where the technological and strategic advantages enjoyed by the West would see them roll into Moscow to win the war. Any war between NATO and Russia would turn nuclear far before that. Thus, NATO expansion eastwards is of little consequence so long as nuclear weapons do not move eastwards. This was shown many decades ago with the Cuban missile crisis that occurred when Russia responded to NATO stationing nuclear weapons in Turkey, which is still a member of NATO. America and its NATO allies could already move nuclear weapons eastwards even prior to the 90s. NATO expanding eastwards since the 90s doesn’t actually add to this threat. The movement of nuclear weapons to the east is what Russia should be concerned about, but that wasn’t the caucus belli given and this threat was solved decades ago.
The Casus Belli Russia hasn’t outwardly stated
The main driver for Russia’s aggression in Ukraine since 2014 is the oil found in Ukraine and off its coast. While Ukraine’s oil deposits are the second largest in Europe, it also has many other natural resources that are crucial for economies. The oil off its coast is why the annexation of Crimea happened - to contest resource property rights. In the past, Russia has made sure that foreign companies helping Ukraine to utilize its natural resources were driven out. This is a strategic reason for supporting the rebels. Russia has taken control of Ukrainian oil rigs in the past and that is telling of their motivations in Ukraine.
This demonstrates why Ukraine joining NATO and the EU was such a red line for Russia. As previously noted, Russia has nothing to worry about militarily from Ukraine joining NATO, but it does mean that Russia wouldn’t be able to dictate Ukrainian politics as it did in the 90s and 00s, take over Ukrainian oil rigs, fund rebels in Ukraine, or invade Ukraine. By vassalizing Ukraine, as it did in the 90s and 00s, there would be no threat to Russia’s oligarchical economy. The inability to vassalize or annex Ukraine means that newly found natural resources would decrease Europe’s dependence on Russia’s natural resources. Essentially, Ukraine joining NATO and the EU is a threat to the current order of Russia and its oligarchy. This has nothing to do with the defense of Russia, but the defense of the rich oligarch’s wealth.
The inability to keep as vassals Eastern Europe is the most threatening thing to Russia’s national interests as the landscape can change in the future, as it did in Ukraine. To continue being a corrupt oligarchy, Russia needs to keep its place intact. Such changes, such as oil being found elsewhere in Europe, can threaten the Russian state as it is an oligarchy founded on raw resources. As an oligarchy, it is unable to change into other areas of trade as easily as a freer market would allow. Taxes from oil are also essential to the Russian state and Ukraine finding oil after 2010 has made it imperative Russia vassalize or annex Ukraine.
Ethnic Cleansing in Ukraine
Russia has long considered Ukraine to be Russia and more recent statements have not countered this assessment. Putin even went so far as to deny the nationality of the Ukrainians. Recent events in Ukraine confirm that a Russian victory will mean the destruction of the Ukrainian identity. Russia is allegedly already mass deporting Ukrainians and it is something Russia has engaged in for centuries. While the destruction of nationality is defined as a genocide the Geneva convention and using deportation was explicitly banned under the first draft of it, it also meets the definition of ethnic cleansing. In fact, that was the exact claim against Nazi Germany at Nuremburg.
Completing the expansion of Russian nationality has been a long-term goal of the Russians, which goes by the name Russian irredentism. It is a New World Order ideology of the East and we should be as careful to not support the Russian Empire as a dialectic against the American Empire.
Russia has turned to American propaganda tactics in its goal to launch a war on Ukraine - making hypocrites out of those who either supported the wars America was involved in but opposing Putin’s aggression or vice versa. Russian irredentism is alive and well in Russia, which has been the fear of Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union. This clear example of Russians going back to their old ways has made NATO stronger in Eastern and Middle Europe. Poland and Germany will take a much more active role in NATO, as Germany did in the 50s. We may likely see long standing neutral countries like Finland and Sweden join NATO. We should lament Russia’s aggression and find a way to both preserve peace and keep the Russian bear from further expanding its borders.
