Why Putin Invaded The Ukraine

 Why did Putin order Russian troops to invade the Ukraine? No one knows for sure, or no one knows completely to be more accurate. Even with the latest  conditions for a cessation in Russian hostilities (click here for an article on those conditions), no one knows completely why Russia invaded the Ukraine. Do these conditions reflect a change in what Putin initially wanted to do because of the consequences of his actions or do those conditions provide evidence for determining Putin's initial reasons for why he ordered the invasion of the Ukraine? We can't know for sure.

But just because we can't know completely, doesn't mean that we cannot know in part. In an insightful article by Joseph Mussomeli which was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog (click here for the article),  Mussomeli gives a more balanced view of the context of the invasion than usually appears in religiously conservative Christian sources. One of the key factors he points to is the eastward expansion of NATO to Russia's borders. This is an important factor seeing Russia's history and that NATO is seen as an adversarial nuclear power. In addition, one of the four conditions that Russia has laid out for an end to hostilities is that the Ukraine commits itself to neutrality, this includes that it will not house NATO missiles unlike Poland and Romania have already done.

One of the reasons why we cannot know completely why Russia invaded the Ukraine is because we simply don't have enough valid information on Putin's mental and physical health. There are reports that Putin might be suffering from a neurological condition that could include the beginning signs of dementia. And there have been questions raised about the Putin's isolation due to the pandemic that also cause one to question his mental state.

There has also been talk of Putin wanting to restore the Russian Empire that existed prior to the formation of the Soviet Union. In addition, there are the ethnic and religious ties that connect the Russia  and the Ukraine to each other.

And so the recent news of the conditions presented by Russia for an end to hostilities muddies the waters as to why Putin had the Ukraine invaded.

In contrast to the article recommended earlier, there is a factor that has not been getting much press. It is a factor that plays a prominent role for decisions being made by all sides both before and during the invasion. That factor is a common human factor especially among traditionalists from all ideologies and nations as well as among old people and it plays more than just a cameo role in the conflict. That factor is the tendency for us to rely too heavily on the past when interpreting and responding to the present.

That factor was significantly present in NATO's decisions to break an understanding between Bush I and Gorbachev regarding the reunion of the then East and West Germany. That understanding was that NATO would not move east of Germany in terms of its member nations. However, unless the Ukraine housed missiles and other strategic military bases, such a membership would not pose any threat to Russia. 

But Russia's past may, and very understandably so, view any ties between the Ukraine and NATO as a threat. Perhaps that is because Russia's history includes being invaded by the West several times. And what might also add to that perception is that there are already two nations that share borders with Russia already house NATO missile bases. This hearkens back to the days leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis when the US place nuclear armed ballistic missiles in Turkey, which shares a border with Russia.

Here we should note that NATO's move east after the fall of the Iron Curtain continued a past US strategy of how to treat a adversarial super power--because of its nuclear weapons, Russia never stopped being a superpower--by surrounding it with military bases. Here, China could easily voice the same complaint that Russia has regarding being surrounded by US military bases. 

Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and its harsh suppression of dissenting voices within reminds one of its tyrannical authoritarian approach used by the former Soviet Union. Revolts in its satellite states we quickly and harshly smashed by the Red Army rolling in with its tanks and troops. Then we have arrests of many Russians who are protesting the invasion. Of course, the worst of those times were during Stalin's reign of atrocities and terror.

With both sides using playbooks from the past, a then, and still now, ignored contribution from the past is speaking to us ever more loudly once Putin threatened to possibly resort to using nuclear weapons on those who interfered too much (click here for the source). 

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

 The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.

One can only hope that the recent Russian proposal, though wholly inadequate, has slowed down our pace from a canter to a stroll toward the precipice. But what would be tragically ironic for the rest of the world is if those first world nations that pride themselves on their intellectual and moral superiority over the rest of the world could not only not work together to solve their grievances, but were so opposed and antagonistic toward each other that they became the cause of the demise of themselves the rest of the world whom they consider to be their inferiors.

Regardless of how much of evolution we religiously conservative Christians we wish to oppose, evolution teaches us one lesson that we must take to heart which applies to the use of war to resolve our differences. That survival in an ever changing world depends on one's ability to change with the world. But that change must not be so drastic that we lose our connection to the wisdom that would still serve us today. Perhaps our nuclear arsenals can teach us what our morals should have taught us centuries ago. That war is wholly intolerable and often puts us in the position of choosing between military defeat or moral suicide. Only now, the continued reliance on war in a world where, because of technology, the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable can only present one option: the annihilation of all people.

Finally, the world's response to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine has been inspiring. From its opposition to the invasion to warm acceptance of Ukrainian refugees gives one hope for mankind's survival. 

But that hope is quickly tempered by the selectivity of both responses employed by the world generally and the Ukraine's neighbor in particular. For the world has spoken almost with one voice against the invasion. But the world does not do that when Israel invades Lebanon or the Gaza strip or when Israel continues to take land away from the Palestinians because of Israel's historic claims to the land. Nor does the world speak in almost unison when the US invades or intervenes in nations in order to replace their governments with one that bends to the will of US leaders. Those invasions and interventions have created more destruction and refugees than the Russian invasion of the Ukraine has. 

And speaking of refugees, we should note that the Ukraine's neighbors, while welcoming Ukrainian refugees with open arms, close their border to those non-whites coming from Syria and other Middle East nations as well as those coming from Africa. These other refugees too have suffered greatly just as the Ukrainian refugees have. And all too often our desire to maintain enough, whatever that is, ties to the past lead us to deny the humanitarian needs, and thus the humanity, of those from other races and cultures.

Just perhaps if the world has not been so selective in how it opposes war and violence, Putin would not thought it was necessary or reasonable to invade the Ukraine as a way of proving himself and his nation.