Two Saigons in One Year and Russia’s Mid-Life Crisis

Jay Ramesh

The fall of Saigon in 1975 left a scar on the American psyche. The images of helicopters crashing into the sea after unloading refugees, PLF troops storming South Vietnamese buildings, and crowds of people desperately trying to board the last American evacuations out of the city were symbolic of America’s long, ultimately futile war in Vietnam. The evacuation of Kabul after Afghanistan fell to the Taliban was eerily similar, with hundreds of people running across the city’s airport highlighting the ultimate futility of that war as well.

Now, America is preparing for its second emergency evacuation of an entire nation in just one year.

As tensions between Russia and the US over Ukraine reach a boiling point, the US and Germany have begun preparing evacuations of their embassy staffs’ families from Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. The US government has not mandated an evacuation of all American citizens in Ukraine yet, though the State Department has encouraged all American citizens to board commercial flights leaving Ukraine ASAP. 

The evacuations signal that the US and NATO are likely anticipating the outbreak of a conflict in Ukraine as talks between NATO and Russia failed in mid-January. The good news here is that the lack of urgency could be a sign that open warfare between Ukraine and Russia is not as imminent as previously thought, though both sides appear to be preparing for war. The embassy warnings came mere hours after over $200 million in military support from the US arrived in Ukraine on January 22.

But let’s attempt to answer the real question beneath all of this: How could NATO allow the situation to deteriorate to this level?

One of the biggest problems with NATO’s response has been the lack of a committed and unified front, largely due to conflicting interests which divides countries over the question of European (and Ukrainian) security, but also due to the nature of NATO as a mutual defense pact. Let’s start with the commitment issues, and take a dive into the history of why both parties can’t seem to trust each other.

Just like in a failing marriage, Russia thinks that NATO wants to have an affair with Ukraine. During WW II, Russia, then part of the old Soviet Union, was cheated on by the German Reich when Germany broke their non-aggression pact and invaded the Soviet Union. After losing nearly a third of its entire population in 4 brutally long years of warfare, Russia promised itself that it would never again risk an invasion from its vast, vulnerable Western regions. 

Russia ultimately sought security after WW II. It forced much of Eastern Europe, including Hungary, Romania, and other states to become “satellite states”- puppet governments that would serve as a buffer between Russia and the West. Though Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time, the nation itself served as a buffer, protecting the Russian heartland from any Western invasions.

After the Cold War, the Soviet Union was split up, with Russia and Ukraine becoming independent nations. However, the Russian state still faced the same security issues as the Soviet Union, needing buffer states to stand between itself and potential invasions from the West. As more and more former satellite states joined NATO, Russia felt more and more threatened by the West, and as it wanted to exert more influence across its border states, Russia began to aggressively prevent its bordering states from joining NATO.

Russia still wants its bordering states to serve as buffers, protecting its borders and allowing it to exert its own influence over its smaller neighbors. It’s ready to threaten costly wars and weaponize energy prices to strengthen its interests in its border states. Admitting Ukraine into NATO would lead to more NATO influence in Ukraine than Russian influence, and it would compromise the security of Russian borders. Russia does NOT want Ukraine to have an affair with and come under the protection of NATO, and it's prepared to risk its already unstable relationship with NATO to prevent a change to the status quo. Talk about a midlife crisis.

Ukraine has definitely been trying to have an affair with NATO, as it has been trying to join NATO for 15 years, largely to protect itself from perceived Russian aggression. The 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine proved to Ukraine exactly why it should have joined NATO earlier. Russia invaded Crimea, a strategically located peninsula on the Black Sea owned by Ukraine, and annexed the region. After the invasion, Russia supported separatists in Eastern Ukraine trying to secede and form a pro-Russian state, which further convinced Ukraine that it could not guarantee its own security without NATO’s protection.

However, the nature of NATO and its reason for creation is key to understanding its members’ indecisiveness on Ukraine. NATO was created as a mutual defense pact aimed at containing Soviet aggression and maintaining peace in Europe. As NATO expands and admits countries likely to become the target of perceived Russian aggression, it runs the risk of getting drawn into a war it wants no part of. 

Today, every member state they admit is a potential risk for the NATO countries, many of whom are falling behind on their required annual defense spending, to get wrapped up in a war they want no part of. So, although having Ukraine may strengthen NATO overall and deter Russian aggression, the actual process of admitting Ukraine into NATO alarms and could provoke a potential war with Russia.

Competing interests also make NATO indecisive on the Ukraine question. 27% of Europe’s oil imports and 41% of Europe’s natural gas imports come through Russia, and if NATO went to war with Ukraine, already high fossil fuel prices could rise even further. 

Germany in particular, one of the strongest members of NATO, is close to finishing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a tunnel that transports natural gas between Russia and Germany. If Germany chooses to back Ukraine, it risks losing its gas supplies, but if it chooses to do nothing, it risks abandoning its closest military allies. If the strongest European member of NATO remains indecisive on Ukraine, it threatens to split and immobilize any strong, deterrent NATO response to Russian threats of war.

Although Ukraine would like to have an affair with NATO, NATO doesn’t want to admit Ukraine and risk antagonizing and threatening Russia. On the other hand, to Russia, it may appear that the only successful way to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO is to threaten a war that NATO does not want to get dragged into. Either way, Russia and NATO have a very toxic relationship, but Russia may be going through a midlife crisis and is unlikely to back down.