Nr. 22
EESTI ELU reedel, 3. juunil 2022 — Friday, June 3, 2022
9
A review of the “Munk Debates: The Russia – Ukraine War” Toomas Eichenbaum After an extended hiatus due to the Covid pandemic, the renowned Munk Debates hosted its first live debate at Roy Thompson Hall in Toron to last Thursday evening. The almost full hall of attendees were witness to a lively and substantive debate on the Russian invasion into Ukraine. The debate proposition was: “Be it resolved, ending the world’s worst geopolitical crisis in a generation starts with acknowledging Russia’s security interests.” A condensed introduction, as presented by The Munk Debates, was as follows: “The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a profound security risk for the world. It raises fundamental issues about the basic principles that under write the international order and it threatens the specter of a high-risk Great Power conflict. How is this fast-evolving crisis best addressed? Does it demand a resolute push by the West to punish and degrade Putin’s Russia economically, politically and militarily? Or is a solution to be found in acknowledging Russia’s security needs and finding ways to mutually de-es calate the war? Which of these different strategies stand the best chance of success? And how ultimately is this conflict best resolved?” Such a debate theme and proposition for the Estonian and other Baltic communities evokes a disturbing reaction, given that “acknowledging Russia’s secu rity interests” sounds like a premise for continued acquies cence to a malevolent Russian regime and to other totalitarian regimes. The debate involved 2 teams, each having 2 prominent ex perts in international affairs. “The Pro Team” speaking in agreement to the proposition included professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Stephen M. Walt is a Professor of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy
School. His most recent book is The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. A basic philosophy advocated by Stephen Walt is founded on his “Balance of Threat” theory and a theory known as “Defensive Realism” which posit that the ongoing strength of the USA on its own is thought to be a basis for up setting a peaceful world order. John J. Mearsheimer is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and has written extensively about security issues and international politics. His latest book is The Great Delusion: Liberal Ideals and International Realities, which won the 2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow (a Russian Think Tank). Mearsheimer is known for being an advocate of the theory of “International Real ism” – a view that the conti nuance of the powerful nations’ cold war style “Spheres of Influence” is the best hope for global peace and order. “The Contra Team” speak ing in opposition to the proposi tion included two widely known experts on Russian and Eurasian affairs, Michael McFaul and Radoslaw Sikorski. Michael McFaul is a Pro fessor of International Studies and a Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford Univer sity. McFaul served for five years in the Obama administra tion as Special Assistant for Russian and Eurasian Affairs and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012– 2014). He has authored several books including Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin and is known for his assertion that “the primary threat to Putin and his autocratic regime is Democracy – and not NATO”. The Hon. Radosław Sikorski is a member of the European Parliament where he serves on the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and on special
committees assigned to security and defense affairs. At Harvard University, he is a Fellow at a Center for European Studies. Prior to his election to the European Parliament in 2019, Sikorski served as minister of national defense of Poland from 2005 to 2007 and minister of foreign affairs from 2007 to 2014. He is renowned “for telling the truth, even when it’s not diplomatic.” The Debate began with an audience “pre-vote” to the prop osition using a cell-phone app. The pre-vote indicated that about 65% of the audience of 2000 attendees agreed with the proposition – that Russia’s security interests need to be acknowledged in order to find a suitable solution to the war. However, a second poll vote indicated that over 70% of the audience was open to changing their minds, pending the substance and outcome of the debate. The debate then called for opening position statements and insights from all four of the debaters. Their statements closely reflected their research and writings as noted in their debate bios. Each debater also attacked their opponents in an ticipation of counter arguments. Arguments from the “Pro Team” included: • That Ukraine, for its own sake to avoid a long war of death and destruction, should declare itself to remain a neu tral and non-aligned nation and concede its lost territories • That the West’s justification of supporting Ukraine as a battle in the name of democracy is a fallacy since several EU and NATO countries (such as Hungary and Turkey are not “democracies”) • That the USA has supposedly “done the same as Russia’s incursion” in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Cuba, and thus has no moral authority in objecting to Russia’s invasion • That Biden and the USA have coerced NATO to be intention ally involved in the Ukraine war in an all-out campaign to “topple the Putin regime”… for its own self-interest • That the continuance of cold war style “spheres of influence” amongst the superpowers (and the subservience of smaller nations to the superpower spheres even if they be totali tarian regimes), although not ideal, was the only path for peace. Many of these “blame the west for Russia’s aggression” assertions drew uncomfortable groans from the audience. The most notable outcry and howls of cynical laughter were when Mearsheimer asserted “That there is no evidence that Russia has purely imperialistic desires for invading and occupying Ukraine”. Mearsheimer also tried to coax the audience to his view by presenting the absurd
The year-end party for the Estonian Supplementary School Toronto was held at Eesti Kodu on May 17. In celebratory spirits were graduating students, along with folk-dance teacher and Northern Birch Credit Union representative Elin Marley (upper photo right). Jaak Hemingway (pictured with teacher Emma Soolepp) was part of the 12th group to have graduated from the Esto class. Photos: Eesti Elu
hypothetical scenario that if Canada should join an alliance with China, then wouldn’t we Canadians understand that the USA would have justification for invading Canada. Arguments from the “Contra Team” included: • McFaul, based on his firsthand negotiation experience with the Russians, asserted that Putin/Medvedev up until 2007 expressed no feelings of overt threat from NATO’s broadened membership and in the early years of the Putin regime there was open discussion of in creased inclusivity of Russia into NATO and the European community • That the quiet acquiescence by the West during the Russian incursions into Georgia, Chech nya and Syria emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine in 2014 • That Russia and the world know full well that NATO as a defensive alliance has no inten tion of invading Russian terri tory. To this point McFaul called for a spontaneous poll of the audience to see how many believe that NATO would invade Russia under any circumstance. There was not one hand shown in support of this notion. • That Putin and Russia’s fears are entirely based on a success ful and prosperous democracy in Ukraine – and a fear of demands for a freer and just society in Russia by Russians which would undermine their autocracy • That the “spheres of influ ence” as advocated by the International Realists totally dismisses the aspect of morality and would violate the tenets of territorial integrity established in 1948 after World War II • Sikorski noted that the Pro Team’s call for Ukraine’s promise to stay neutral and non-aligned was already offered
by the Zelensky team in the early days of the conflict. That, however, was insufficient for the Russians as they seemingly hoped for a complete capitula tion by the Zelensky govern ment. • McFaul asserted that if the Pro Team’s prerequisite for peace are Ukrainian conces sions to Russia to get them to Peace talks, then “How much should they concede? – Crimea?, all of Donbas?, Mariupol?, Kherson?, Kharkiv? maybe a Zelensky relinquishing from governing?... Where would the concessions end?” • That as the conflict continues, it is more evident that Putin and the Russians are hell-bent on annihilating the Ukrainian government and its people. All of the statements and opinions generated lively reac tions (and sometimes boisterous cross talk) amongst the debaters and clearly engaged the audi ence as shown by loud applause to points made by both sides. After a “rapid fire” ques tions-and-responses session hosted by Janet Gross Stein of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, the debaters were then asked to provide predictions on the Ukraine conflict and to provide their views on the best solutions for peace. The “Pro Team” posited that there were only two fore seeable alternative outcomes to the current conflict. Their favoured scenario would have Ukraine commit to a neutral and non-aligned status and that NATO and the USA stop its military support in order to get Russia to the peace table. If that scenario is not pursued, then the alternative would inevitably be an escalating horrific war of attrition and, in the end, at least a limited nuclear war in eastern (Continued on page 11)
