Why People Blame America for the War in Ukraine

INTRO (0s)

• The Cold War between two major empires had been ongoing for 50 years, but it began to thaw rapidly in the 1990s after years of propaganda, isolation, tanks, coups, fear, spies, nuclear tests, and close calls (14s).
• US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leaders were discussing peace, marking a significant shift in the relationship between the two nations (23s).
• The momentum for peace was maintained by Reagan and later by George H.W. Bush, leading to widespread optimism and the collapse of walls and the withdrawal of armies (42s).
• The end of the Cold War was seen as a victory for freedom and democracy globally, marking the end of conflicts and empires, and the beginning of a new era of prosperity and peace (51s).
• However, this optimism was short-lived, and today countries are preparing for war again, cutting ties, and the world resembles the Cold War era (1m17s).
• The question arises as to what went wrong and who is to blame, with Western politics primarily pointing fingers at Russia and China for trying to disrupt the US-led rules-based order (1m25s).
• An alternative narrative, rarely discussed in the West, suggests that this perspective might be incorrect, and that the West may not be entirely blameless in the current state of global affairs (1m50s).
• The intention is to explore this alternative narrative, setting aside biases and conventional historical views, and considering the possibility that the West may not have been the "good guys" in recent decades (2m9s).
• By examining this narrative, it is hoped that lessons can be learned to help avoid another disastrous global conflict, despite disagreements with certain aspects of the narrative (2m28s).
• The video aims to provide a thought-provoking exploration of how the West may have contributed to the new Cold War, with sources for each assertion linked in the video description (2m38s).

COLD WAR ENDS (2m50s)

• The year is 1991, and the Cold War has ended largely due to the efforts of Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, who focused on peace and easing tensions between the two empires (2m52s).
• Gorbachev believed that the Cold War was unnecessary, especially in the era of nuclear war, which could destroy all of humanity (3m17s).
• The end of the Cold War led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 separate countries, with Russia being the largest and the continuation of the Soviet government (3m31s).
• The end of the Cold War brought about a new era, and the question arose as to who had won; most people believed it was the United States and its allies, who had emerged victorious with capitalism and democracy prevailing (5m48s).
• However, Russia did not view itself as a defeated nation and instead wanted to be a co-creator of the post-Cold War order, seeking to join the West as an equal partner rather than a subordinate or defeated nation (6m11s).
• Russia hoped to establish a system based on international law, where disputes would be resolved through institutions rather than military alliances and the rule of the strongest empires (6m32s).
• The end of the Cold War was seen as a victory for all, with no winners or losers, but rather a shared escape from the conflict (6m55s).

THE DEBATE (7m0s)

• In the 1990s, a debate emerged in Washington D.C. about how to treat Russia, with some Americans viewing them as a defeated Cold War enemy that should be punished, while others saw them as a potential partner in building a new world order (7m1s).
• One camp of American thinkers believed that Russia had clearly lost the war and did not deserve a seat at the negotiating table, instead advocating for a cautious approach and a significant US military presence in Europe to counter potential Russian aggression (7m18s).
• This group argued that by doing so, the US would also be promoting democracy, leading to more peace and stability (7m33s).
• From the beginning, Russia was treated differently than countries like Poland, with some questioning why the US should support its former enemy (7m40s).
• However, another group, comprising experts and diplomats who understood the Soviet Union, argued that defining the situation in terms of winners and losers was dangerous and could lead to more wars (7m48s).
• They pointed to the example of the aftermath of World War I, where the victorious powers punished Germany, leading to economic despair, national shame, and ultimately, World War II and the rise of Adolf Hitler (8m5s).
• This group warned that imposing such treatment on Russia would only accumulate resentment and instead advocated for utilizing the momentum of peace and Russia's willingness to cooperate to make them a co-creator of the new global order (8m31s).
• They cautioned that expanding military alliances aimed at the former Soviet Union would punish and isolate Russia, forcing them to become an enemy once again (8m47s).
• The plan to expand the military alliance system, originally aimed at the Soviet Union, would now be directed at Russia, making it an enemy (9m4s).
• Expanding NATO would also erase the boundaries drawn by Stalin in Europe after World War II (9m13s).

NATO EXPANDS (9m22s)

• In the mid-1990s, US President Bill Clinton and his administration increasingly supported the expansion of NATO, driven by several factors, including the need to secure Polish-American votes in his 1996 re-election campaign and concerns about instability in Eastern Europe (9m32s).
• The region was seen as unstable, uncertain, and composed of fragile new democracies under the shadow of the US's long-time adversary, prompting Clinton's administration to consider locking them in as allies to prevent them from falling back under Russian influence (9m55s).
• However, critics argued that this approach was misguided, as Russia was not a significant threat at the time, having collapsed and being in a state of chaos (10m14s).
• George Kennan, a respected American diplomat and expert on Russia, strongly opposed NATO's expansion, warning that it would be a "fateful error" and lead to a resurgence of nationalism, anti-Western sentiment, and militarism in Russia (11m15s).
• Kennan, who had served as US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, predicted that NATO's expansion would have a negative impact on Russia's development, lead to a deterioration in East-West relations, and push Russia's foreign policy in an unfavorable direction (11m54s).
• Kennan's warnings were echoed by other critics, who argued that NATO's expansion would create a new enemy and lead to a revival of Cold War tensions (12m42s).
• Despite these warnings, Clinton's administration proceeded with the plan, leading to widespread criticism and concerns about the potential consequences, including the risk of provoking a nationalist and anti-Western backlash in Russia (12m27s).
• The expansion of NATO ultimately contributed to a deterioration in US-Russia relations and created an opportunity for Russia to reassert its influence in the region (13m18s).
• In hindsight, critics like George Kennan and David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, have argued that the Clinton administration squandered a valuable opportunity to build a more positive relationship with Russia and that the consequences of this decision continue to be felt today (13m45s).

CHARTER SYSTEM (14m0s)

• The US decision to influence post-Cold War European decision-making by expanding NATO was a rational move for a powerful nation with its own interests in mind, especially considering its 50-year history of tense proxy wars with its former enemies (14m8s).
• The US and the countries that joined NATO had the right to make these decisions, as they were acting on their own free will and not being forced into it (14m28s).
• However, the US could have made a less rational but more selfless decision during this potentially peaceful window, choosing to negotiate with Russia and work towards a more cooperative relationship (14m42s).
• The US had a great blueprint to start with, and if they had used it and had the will to do so, millions of lives might have been saved (15m22s).
• After World War II, the world came together to establish a new world order, ensuring that such a devastating event would not happen again, and created a system based on laws, protocols, treaties, and charters that applied to all nations (15m34s).
• The strongest nations would have some special leadership privileges, but even they would have to follow the rules, marking a significant change from the past when powerful empires made their own rules (15m58s).
• The US, as the strongest nation, played a natural leadership role in this system, ensuring that countries followed the new rules, but it should have done so within the framework of sovereign internationalism (16m36s).
• The system had a difficult start due to the power struggle between the US and the Soviet Union, which led to the Cold War, but the 1990s presented an opportunity for a new beginning (17m12s).
• For the US to truly usher in a peaceful era based on laws and rules, it would have had to follow the rules itself, despite being the most powerful nation, and not give itself special privileges or interfere in the affairs of other nations (17m42s).
• After the Cold War, there was a need to establish a pan-European system that was not anti-American but post-American, allowing the US to focus on its own development and people (18m7s).
• However, as a global superpower, it can be challenging for the US to follow the rules and give up some of its power, as seen in its actions (18m29s).
• The United States did not involve Russia in designing a new international system after the Cold War, instead maintaining a large military presence in Europe and globally, and expanding its military alliances (18m35s).
• The US continued to promote an international system but did not establish a truly rules-based international order, instead executing a command where everyone except the US had to follow the rules (18m50s).
• The US positioned itself as the global enforcer of rules, placing itself above the laws it helped create, and many Americans believed this was justified due to the country's strong military and perceived best government system (19m2s).
• This perspective is based on the idea that the US has the historical answers and its society is the best, leading to a messianic vision of shaping the world and educating others, even if it means using force (19m31s).
• The US's dominance in global order has brought an unprecedented era of peace and stability, with the country protecting the global economy, ensuring financial systems, mediating peace agreements, and responding to natural disasters (19m57s).
• However, this has also led to the US granting itself a position above the rules, allowing it to break them when it sees fit, resulting in double standards and resentment from countries like Russia, China, and Brazil (20m21s).
• This situation is comparable to when police or the wealthy break rules and consider themselves above the law, violating basic senses of justice and leading to anger and a desire to change the system (20m41s).
• True peace will only come when there is a system where everyone follows the same rules, and not having this will lead to a system where some countries are above the law, causing anger and efforts to disrupt the system (21m1s).

NEW COLD WAR (21m21s)

• As predicted, NATO expanded, and Russia felt punished, isolated, and excluded, giving rise to politicians who criticized the West and promised to restore Russia's greatness, with Vladimir Putin rising to power immediately after NATO began expanding (21m23s).
• Initially, Putin expressed interest in joining NATO, but as time passed and the US excluded Russia from Europe's new security system, the Russian people became increasingly angry with the West, and Putin began to capitalize on this sentiment (21m43s).
• The expansion of NATO sparked nationalist, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian public opinion, with Putin becoming increasingly nationalistic and calling for the restoration of the Russian Empire (22m10s).
• The West felt that its decision to expand NATO was justified, but by doing so, it created the very enemy it sought to avoid, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy (22m36s).
• In 2008, NATO promised Ukraine and Georgia that they would eventually become members, which marked the closing of the window for peace (22m59s).
• The expansion of NATO helped create the version of Russia that exists today, and the conflict between Russia and the West is a vicious cycle of hostility, with both sides feeling justified in their actions (23m27s).
• The situation escalated into a full-blown conflict, with Russia launching a long-awaited attack on Ukraine, NATO putting 300,000 troops on high alert, and the US and its G7 allies pushing for a $5 billion loan plan to help Ukraine counter Russia (24m4s).
• Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not justified, and his decision to wage a terrible war to tear the country apart is a moral outrage that should be condemned (24m26s).
• However, it is essential to understand the context of how the situation escalated to this point, and explaining the war is different from justifying it (25m19s).
• Explaining the situation involves understanding the historical context, the psychology of the conflict, and the complexities of the issue, rather than simply assigning blame (25m21s).
• The current conflict in Ukraine can be seen as a result of the creation of identities and borders by powerful nations, with the UK being a common example in many border conflicts, and the US is also being blamed for the war in Ukraine (26m8s).
• The historical context of the conflict cannot justify Putin's invasion, but it forces us to think about how to take a different path to prevent such outcomes, and how powerful nations must put down their swords and agree to follow the same rules as everyone else for peace to be achieved (26m33s).
• For peace to be possible, every country must follow the same laws, and any system of order, rules, and laws cannot work unless everyone adheres to them (26m58s).
• To eliminate the curse of war, humans must do something unusual and irrational, such as the most powerful nations deciding to give up some of their power and commit to establishing a system of enlightened conflict through words, institutions, laws, and justice (27m10s).
• The US has the ability to periodically renew itself and provide the kind of leadership that promotes world peace and development, as discussed by Eisenhower and Kennedy (27m50s).
• The goal is to create a better West, and to achieve this, we must be open to different narratives and consider alternative perspectives (28m45s).