By: Anna Grace Calhoun
As Russian artillery shells indiscriminately destroy Ukrainian cities, the Western response has been swift and sweeping, featuring extensive sanctions designed to sever Russia from the global economy. Pointing to Ukrainian heroism and the unified condemnation of NATO and the U.S., many Western figures have asked with indignation: How did Putin think he could get away with this? In their narrative, Putin gravely miscalculated; he committed an egregious assault on human rights, democracy, and state sovereignty, and he solidified his nation’s destiny of becoming a pariah. However, the recent past reveals the West has been apathetic when it comes to Russian aggression against non-strategically valuable states. The future is impossible to predict, but it is entirely plausible that Putin will walk away having achieved at least some of his goals, such as Ukrainian neutrality. Even in outcomes less favorable to Putin, his downfall is less likely to be brought on by Western rescue than by wild card factors, such as a Ukrainian insurgency. As such, perhaps Western societies overestimated the credibility of their claim to being decisive defenders of democracy. The West must seek to re-evaluate themselves honestly; otherwise, they will never understand the calculus which guides Putin-like figures.
Perhaps scarred by the Bush era’s overreach and failures in nation-building, the past three U.S. presidents have pursued a foriegn policy that rhetorically emphasizes democratic values and alliance but commits primarily “democratic support” insofar as it serves direct security concerns. This policy has left Russian international assaults on human rights largely unchallenged. Though the West is pointing to the displacement of 6.5 million Ukranians as a motivator for their action against the Russian invasion, it has never given the same attention to Moscow’s backing of the Assad regime, whose civil/proxy war has displaced over 13.5 million Syrians. The Syrian government carried out 32 confirmed chemical attacks and stands accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and “other international crimes, including genocide” by the UN Human Rights Council. Yet, even following Obama’s 2012 “red line” declaration, the West has made no dedicated effort to stand with Syrians in the way it has rallied against potential war crimes in Ukraine. In fact, the same EU countries now welcoming Ukrainian refugees aggressively turned away Syrian refugees, even using them as political pawns in manufactured border crises. What about this response demonstrates to Putin that the West has a genuine, principled devotion to upholding human rights internationally?
Other Western values asserted in opposition to the invasion include protection of state sovereignty and democratic governance. However, the strength of these commitments are questionable in the wake of Kremlin influence on the most recent Belrusian election. After the fraudulent reelection of current Belarusian President Lukashenko, the leader faced widespread protests, which he met with intense militia crackdowns. His regime then secured further Russian backing, with the KGB forcing his former electoral opponent Tsikhanouskaya to emigrate to Lithuania. This dictator, who kidnapped dissidents and brutalized protestors, solidified his rule in 2020 by enlisting Russian aid in crushing democratic electoral results and uprisings--and his abuses hardly made headlines. Where was the West’s commitment to bolstering democracy in Minsk? The choice to turn a blind eye now exacts an acute cost, with Belarus serving as a key launching ground for Russian missiles and as a potential military reinforcer. Interference with the Belerusian election is just one example among numerous Russian violations of state sovereignty: the annexation of Crimea in 2014, active perpetuation of frozen conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia/Azerbaijan, and interference in a U.S. election. Again, the West formed no cohesive and consistent resistance against such assaults on democratic sovereignty.
Despite the emphasis on the moral imperative to support Ukrainians’ freedom against an enemy committed to evil, Putin’s success in continuing operations to undermine both individual and state freedoms may have taught him a lesson the West has yet to learn: regardless of language suggesting otherwise, human rights and democratic principles unfortunately take a backseat in foreign policy. Biden’s botched statement about disagreements concerning whether to respond to a “minor incursion” only confirmed that security and economic factors exert far more leverage over policy than principles-based ones. So, on balance of interests alone, this invasion is better characterized as a risky bet than as a blind miscalculation, considering the enormous strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia and its murkier concrete value to the West. Putin’s regime predicted and presumably calculated sanctions to be an absorbable cost. Weak Western resolve to defend democracy makes Putin’s expectations about limitations on Western pushback understandable, even if they prove to be incorrect. The West must reckon with the reality that its limited affirmation of fundamental rights internationally may be an authoritarian-emboldening strategic weakness.
