Matthew Owen is pretty good. His book ‘Overreach’ is a serious piece of journalism, though not a piece of IR analysis. He remains in the Western camp ideologically, but he is, in my view, reliable about 95% of the time. (I think he slightly falls for Ukrainian propaganda on Russian intervention in Donbas, but this is a difficult area and probably both sides exaggerate).
He makes several key points. Firstly; NATO membership for Ukraine is a red flag for Russia just like the US would not allow Russian or any other foreign or opposing force or ideology to establish themselves in Central and South America, or China doesn’t want foreign military power geographical close to them. I fail to understand how anyone with a University degree can fail to grasp this point. If 2 + 2 = 4 is a truism of maths, it is a truism of IR that a powerful state cares, and powerful states throughout history have always cared, about other Great Powers setting up on their borders. Secondly; Ukrainian membership of NATO was not even a very popular demand in Ukraine before the war. (We have established this point here). Thirdly; Putin is not an imperialist; a) the quote about the collapse of the USSR being a “catastrophe” is taken out of context; it was an emotional statement about Russians who became ‘stranded’ outside of the borders of the new Russia and, (Matthews did not add this part), Putin went on to say, that ideas about reconstituting the Soviet Union belonged in the realm of phantasy, and b) if Russia has spent two years struggling to take 20% of Eastern Ukraine how is it serious to think that Russia could pose a risk to Poland or the Baltics, which would involve a fight with NATO – the idea that “Poland is next” is crazy. Fourthly, it is phantasical to talk about Ukraine joining NATO. NATO’s rules make it hard for a country with a live dispute with a neighbour to join. This gives Russia a veto on Ukraine joining. And the decision to admit NATO would have to be a consensus one. It is doubtful if Hungary would agree. Even Germany is doubtful. Fifthly; a fundamental point; wars end either by total victory for one side, or, by negotiations. Given that Russia cannot be defeated (it is a nuclear power) this is going to end with negotiations; why is it being dragged out? Sixthly; Putin will continue fighting as long as NATO membership of Ukraine is on the table. Matthews also, very clearly, points out that one of the major obstacles to a peace settlement is the nationalists in Kiev who will not able able to countenance any loss of territory. This is a thought out and clear argument against the folly of pressing on with the idea of putting Ukraine into NATO. It isn’t possible, can’t be done, and people are continuing to die just because the West has stuck themselves on this petard and can’t back down.
As I say above, I think the story Owen Matthews tells about Eastern Ukraine underestimates the real feeling, at least in parts of Luhansk and Donetsk against being ruled by Ukrainian nationalists, who they think despise them, but, overall, he is a very serious journalist and writer with a clear view of this disaster.
I suppose one should credit the Spectator with at least letting Owen Matthews speak. But I am struck by the sheer stupidity of the journalist. 1) She reproduces one of the current follies of the Western media/political classes; Putin’s “red lines” have been crossed before so why we should take Russia’s objections to Ukraine joining NATO seriously? But the “red lines” they are talking about are operational ones. Furthermore these “red lines” are largely ones invented by Western journalists. The Russian political class certainly expressed displeasure about e.g. the West supplying tanks and then fighter jets to Ukraine, but they did not talk about these even remotely in the same category as the existential red-line about Ukraine joining NATO – which the Russians have been pointing out is unacceptable since 2008, when George Bush pressed NATO to start the process of admitting Georgia and Ukraine. The journalist’s grasp of politics is so weak that she can’t tell the difference between some noise about weapons and a consistently repeated and articulated strategic point about their strategic security. 2) At 9.47 the stupid journalist says in a muddled series of ideas; “I think that nonetheless some viewers might be a little frustrated that NATO membership for Ukraine can never happen…. they (Ukraine) are not just fighting this war for themselves…. appeasement”. Matthews has just explained all the key points and articulated why it is so deadly and futile to keep on with the unrealisable plan to put Ukraine into NATO and she just goes, “nonetheless”. Back to 2 + 2 = 4. This is like someone trying to argue that 2 + 2 = 5 and when presented with 2 piles of two counters merging to make a pile of 4, take a brief look at it and then goes: “Nonetheless, 2 + 2 = 5”. It is that stupid. And this is how stupid almost all of the Western political and media classes have become. How did this happen? What are they drinking?