Should Russia be given security guarantees?
This controversial idea, in the midst the war’s winter slowdown, was presented by France’s President, Emmanuel Macron.
Near the beginning of the war, President Macron was an early proponent of peace, and sought to mediate negotiations as soon as possible. He became a figure of controversy when he met with Putin to discuss the war and possibilities of diplomatic dialogue.
Now, Macron is once again at the forefront of controversy. In a broadcast that was released on December 3, President Macron was talking about managing the war in Ukraine from the perspective of rebuilding Europe’s security architecture and reestablishing the norms of rules and law on the continent. Reasonably, Macron is foreseeing the myriad diplomatic difficulties, and wants to address early on that in order to avoid similar conflict in the future, concessions may have to be made.
I also wrote about this. If you’d like to view it, follow the link below:
Specifically, Macron said this:
“This issue will be part of the peace discussions and we need to prepare for what happens next and think about how we can protect our allies and at the same time give guarantees to Russia for its own safety once it comes back to the table of the negotiations.”
This is a overwhelmingly controversial idea, but Macron’s sentiments do have some validity and they should be considered with genuine care. The whole pretext to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — in terms of any remotely legitimate claim — was the eastward expansion of NATO. This entails a critical decision in history that I will discuss briefly for context.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine was faced with independence and sovereignty for — realistically — the first time in its history. At that time, Ukraine possessed one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world due to the border shifting that resulted in the USSR’s collapse; the missiles would not simply *blip* back into Russian territory, so Ukraine possessed them. The Russian Federation, however, maintained the control of the systems. So, in 1994 the Budapest Memorandum was signed. Essentially, the agreement meant that Ukraine — along with Belarus and Kazakhstan — would turn over their nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. Specifically, that Russia, the UK, and US could not use force or coercion against Ukraine — or Belarus and Kazakhstan — except in instances of defense.
There is some other important context as to why Russia agreed to this deal though. In 1990, NATO had essentially verbalized to Moscow that NATO would not expand beyond the borders of what was East Germany. This was happening at the time of German Reunification. Fast forward to the fall of the Soviet Union, we have a sudden burst of newly independent states in Europe, and a diplomatic scramble of sorts begins.
The 1994 Memorandum went through with certain assumptions from Russia’s point of view — assumptions that were perceived as broken throughout the remaining 90’s and early 2000’s, as NATO rapidly expanded eastward.
This is a debate that is being discussed today, as Putin has more than once cited it as a justification for his ‘special operation’ in Ukraine. This opinion is also widely disseminated into the public mind in Russia.
It is true that NATO expanded eastward. It is also true that Russia has broken a vast number of agreements. Like, awkwardly, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
Clearly, there are persistent fears, disagreements, and slights between Russia and the West. That has created a rift. A rift that has formed decades of dodgy relations between Russia and the West, and a rift that has now come to a violent head in Ukraine.
And that rift is precisely what Emmanuel Macron — against the popular, simple narrative — is trying to maneuver beyond.
We cannot say what exactly those guarantees would look like yet. And who knows, Emmanuel Macron could be out of his mind and propose something absurd are grossly over-conciliatory. Such a proposal would likely be shot down by France’s international partners like the US, Germany, or the UK (the plus side of democratic states joined in diplomacy). That being said, his open mindedness and forward thinking is an attempt to curtail an escalation to the current war as well as avoiding such a crisis from happening again in the future.
I personally think that is putting too much faith in the current Putin regime. Putin has a terrible track record — from the Western perspective — of being someone that can be trusted. From the Russian perspective, he has ardently pursued uniquely Russian goals. For that reason, I can only respect Macron’s ability to think outside the box, to address the major diplomatic endeavor we are approaching, and to want to ensure future peace.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below.
Also, for more (FREE) articles like this, consider joining my newsletter:
