Putin's Demand From Ukraine Should Be Non-Negotiable
Putin wants a guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO. He shouldn't get it.
Vladimir Putin has asked for a legal guarantee in return of not invading Ukraine. This should be a no-no.
I understand what a bogeyman NATO is for Russia. I understood this when I read that Boris Yeltsin’s administration easily agreed to intervene in the Balkans under U.S. command but would under no circumstances consider intervening under NATO command. Even during the era of good feelings, when fighting under a U.S. General was not a tough call, NATO remained a redline. I actually believe that many Russian officials, maybe even Putin himself, believe that NATO is a conspiracy to invade Russia.
In 2008, during the Bucharest NATO summit, the White House wanted to grant Ukraine and Georgia membership action plans, the first step to admit them to NATO. Secretaries of State and Defense Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates objected. So the U.S. position was already weak. The summit itself was the most heated in its history. Members were all over. The eventual compromise brokered by Angela Merkel was that there would be no membership action plan, but there would be a statement released that “We agree today that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO.” As Angela Stent argues, it was the worst of both worlds. The statement antagonized Putin, but it was too weak to deter him from preemptive action. So months later, he invaded Georgia. And then the Russia reset under the Barack Obama administration ended Ukraine’s hope of admission, which Putin took advantage of by invading Ukraine.
Now, Ukraine is renewing calls to join NATO, and Putin wants a legal guarantee that it won’t happen.
The problem with a legal guarantee is that the concept of international law is stupid. International laws are in fact domestic laws that two or more states agree to concurrently enforce. So an international law between or among rule of law democracies makes sense, as the different sides can trust each other with enforcement. Even an international law between the United States and a small autocracy makes sense since, if the United States wishes to, it can punish a small and weak country for violations. How on earth can the United States make sure that Russia, the world’s greatest nuclear power, abides by its international agreements—several of which Russia is already breaking?