It's hard to agree with the cynical and teleological advice, "On the road, don't be right, be smart," but one must admit that it saves lives and should be embraced in the proper circumstances. This complicated dilemma lies at the root of the tragic Ukraine crisis, and did even before the war broke out.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Russia made a serious mistake and did not act wisely in attempting to occupy Ukraine by a wide scale invasion, but it is correct in its historic, legitimate security demands. However, Putin could have secured what he wanted if he had been satisfied with taking small parts of Ukraine, like annexing the two eastern republics in the Donbas region while expanding his occupation of the Crimean Peninsula and creating a defense wedge.
Russia's serious mistake was in occupying all of Ukraine, the second-biggest country in Europe, in the center of which – home to 40 million residents – it could find itself bogged down deeply, like it was in Afghanistan, from whence it was forced to retreat. It could be that Russia's clear success in keeping Georgia from falling to NATO and the West in 2008 and its achievement on the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 caused Putin to think that this was what would happen in the heart of Europe, Ukraine, as well.
But Russia's demand that Ukraine serve as a wedge between it and its rivals in the West, and that NATO not breach its borders, is reasonable and justified, even before its historical ties. Approximately 30 years ago, when the Soviet bloc broke up, the Warsaw Pact crumbled and Russia lost its status, and the West and NATO took advantage of the situation and moved closer to Russia's borders in countries that had formerly been under its influence. So it's no wonder that Russia saw that as the highest potential threat.
The other side, the US and the West, is also justified but behaving unwisely. The West is right in clinging to universal, democratic values, but errs in ignoring the difficult international reality that is still based on power and interests, and therefore on du- or tri-polarity.
The western hubris, which did not cooperate with Russia's demands not to expand to Ukraine, humiliated the Kremlin and backed Putin into a corner. The American administration, which knew very well ahead of time what Russia's intentions were, could have known that the assault would be brutal, as Russia usually fights wars, and would lead to a Ukrainian tragedy. And mostly, it was unwise for the US to push Putin into a situation that would raise the level of nuclear alert, a step of unparalleled risk – namely, nuclear brinksmanship.
The Ukraine crisis is reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in the context of smart vs. right. There, the Soviets set up missiles that posed a threat to the US, and the world reached the brink of a nuclear conflict. It's possible that few people remember that the missiles were set up in Cuba after the US had deployed missiles in Turkey that were needlessly close to the then-Soviet Union. The crisis was resolved when both sides removed the missiles.
The current crisis could have been prevented if the condescending West had behaved more wisely, and promised the Kremlin that NATO would not expand in its direction. And it might not be too late to end the Ukrainian tragedy, if the West would only adopt a policy like that of Kissinger's during the "nuclear alert" of 1973.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
