Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective

ABSTRACT

Most Western commentaries on Ukraine in the past few years have blamed the country’s crisis on Russia. However, as John Mearsheimer has pointed out, prime responsibility for Ukraine’s dilemma actually lies with the West. This article examines the situation in more depth, providing a historical and philosophical analysis of the reasons why the crisis has been the inevitable outcome of blundering Western actions. On a superficial level, the Ukraine crisis results from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)/EU (European Union) expansion, from the “democracy” project mounted within Ukraine by the West, from a failure by leading Western countries to consider Russian strategic interests, and from a lack of prudence by key Western figures who have not foreseen the consequences of their actions. On a deeper level, the West under the leadership of the United States has proven unable to learn from similar mistakes in the past, or to display insight into the flaws within its political norms. Worst of all, the West has fallen into the trap, which Thucydides correctly discerned in relation to the expansion of Athenian imperialism and its eventual demise. Various key insights of Thucydides and Spinoza are adduced to support this interpretation.

KEYWORDS:

• Ukraine crisis
• imperialism
• Euromaidan revolution

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on Contributor

Peng Chengyi (following Chinese practice, the surname, Peng, is placed first), PhD in political science, is a Junior Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economics and Politics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He specializes in Western political thought, global constitutionalism, and anti-corruption in China.

Notes

1. This insight may remind us of Shakespeare’s wisdom in capturing the same human nature in his long poem The Rape of Lucrece: “while Lust is in his pride, no exclamation can curb his heat or rein his rash desire, till like a jade self-will himself doth tire.”

2. The differences between the two states are obvious, but whether these differences suffice to undermine the similar logic of the two cases is another question, that would take an extensive article to elaborate.

3. It is worth noting that in the original Latin of Spinoza’s works, the term that is variously translated as “state” or “sovereignty” is imperium, which may remind us of broad set of analogies between the nature and working mechanisms of a national imperium and of a colonial imperium.

4. Potentia and potestas are two crucial and complicated concepts of Spinoza’s political thought, but for the sake of simplicity, the former may be taken as “constituting power” and the latter as “constituted power.”

5. Constitutional patriotism is the idea that people should form a political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic liberal democratic constitution, rather than to a national culture or cosmopolitan society. Habermas played a key role in developing and contextualizing the idea of constitutional patriotism, and in spreading it to English-speaking countries. See Müller and Scheppele (2008).

6. For Nietzsche, the words “people,” “slaves,” “mob,” “the herd,” “Christians” and “Jewish” all imply the same referent, which is similar to Spinoza’s usage of the term “multitude.” I should point out here that I neither share nor support Nietzsche’s anti-Jewish attitudes and sentiments.