Like Putin's inspirations, does NATO draw inspiration from the ideas of Western philosophers?

Over the past few months, many wrote about ideological, cultural and even religious justifications that may constitute possible factors for the Russian war on Ukraine, in addition to the well-known geopolitical, economic and military dimensions.

Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin and other philosophers including Kyiv-born theologian Nicholas Berdyaev (1874-1948), Soviet ethnologist Lev Gumilyov (1912-1992), and ideological theorist Ivan Ilyin (1883-1954) are often cited as possible inspirations for Russian President Vladimir Putin. .

On the other side of the front, some are wondering, are there Western thinkers, intellectuals and philosophers who inspired the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with the idea of ​​extending to the borders of Russia?

Were there thinkers behind the Western alliance's plans that paved the way for a conflict in Ukraine that killed thousands, displaced millions and raised the prospect of nuclear war?

Two questions that an article by two European writers tried to answer in an article published by Al Jazeera English.

Western rationality

Before answering the two questions, Santiago Zabala, professor of philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, ​​Spain, and Claudio Gallo, former head of foreign news at the Italian newspaper La Stampa, say that it is impossible to link any NATO strategy to a particular philosopher.

But this does not mean, in their opinion, that the theoretical positions and ideological arguments of some thinkers did not inspire, legitimize, or motivate some decisive actions of the US-led military coalition.

In their joint article, Zappala and Gallo sought an answer from their reading of the ideas of 4 Western philosophers, which might give them a deeper understanding of how the present conflict led to the present conflict, and perhaps teach us how to prevent other conflicts from erupting in the future.

The main idea that binds these Western-born philosophers to one another is the belief that rationality is a universal structure embedded in the core of all humanity. They cosmopolitan their ideas but in fact only promote strict Western ideals.

Jürgen Habermas

Perhaps the first thinker that the two writers consider able to help them understand NATO's actions and motives in the run-up to the Ukraine war is the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas.

German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas (Agencies)

Habermas was against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but supported the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia without UN approval (both actions that are equally untenable from a legal point of view).

Given the danger of nuclear escalation in the context of the Ukraine war, the German philosopher is now calling for a "face-saving compromise for both sides."

These seemingly contradictory positions demonstrate the anti-global pragmatism that affirms his philosophy, but does not indicate that Habermas promotes a model of social democracy that transcends the borders of nation-states.

Born in the Protestant middle-class society of West Germany, Habermas became the most prominent contemporary European philosopher with a career spanning nearly seven decades, during which he developed a philosophical system linking epistemology, linguistics, sociology, politics, religion, and law.

Democracy, according to Habermas, requires an active political space and political institutions that are able to respond and integrate the energy that arises from debate, protest, confrontation, and politics.

The German philosopher - who is described as the heir to the legacy of the Frankfurt School that invented philosophical concepts such as technical hegemony and the instrumental mind - warned of the increasing danger of national "populism" and the extreme right, as he saw that the political authorities turned a blind eye to it under the pretext of the dominant anti-communism.

Habermas called for a collective European identity based on what he calls "constitutional nationalism" that replaces class, religion and the nation in the old continent, and opposed fascism, nationalism and the rise of the right, calling on liberal democracies in the West to "respect human dignity."

The German philosopher developed the concept of "constitutional patriotism" in the late 1980s, opposing the construction of post-war Germany on a national basis, but rather it needed to be built on the broader European liberal democratic tradition, in which citizens should find their identity in a "constitutional patriotism" open to all human beings rather than centered around history National, according to a Foreign Policy review.

Habermas argued that Europeans should see themselves united by the legacy of the French Revolution and human rights values, opposed the Iraq war, criticizing the George W. Bush administration for "violating international law", disparaging the positions of some Eastern European countries that supported the American intervention in Iraq, and finding signs of hope in what he called "the strength of sentiments" that inspired millions of Europeans to protest the invasion of Iraq.

Francis Fukuyama

Another thinker is the famous American Francis Fukuyama, who supports the same model of social democracy promoted by Habermas and can thus help explain the motivations and thinking behind NATO's strategies in the past few decades.

According to Fukuyama, this model was realized after the Cold War, after the victory of Western liberal democracy over the Soviet Union.

It was, for him, the end of history—the end point of humanity's ideological development—and he argued that Western liberal democracy was the ultimate and best form of human government that anyone could hope for.

Fukuyama recently realized that Western democracies could disintegrate, and that the world could face the "end of history" if the United States and the rest of the West did not stop Russia and China from doing what they liked and taking over the world.

He also praised Finland and Sweden's willingness to join NATO.

Fukuyama - the author of "The End of History and the Last Man" - says that the world stands today at a very important moment, because the success of Russian President Vladimir Putin in overthrowing democracy in Ukraine and replacing his regime with it, would be a horrific precedent for the use of pure force, and would inspire China to reintegrate Taiwan It would also mean a humiliation for the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), from which the whole world would understand that American promises of support are just hollow words and that cooperation between democracies is a mirage.

Michael Walzer and Bernard-Henri Levy

The third thinker whose ideas the authors believe can help understand NATO's position on the conflict in Ukraine is the American political philosopher and expert on war ethic Michael Walzer, who sees the war in Ukraine once again demonstrating the lasting value of the "just war" theory.

This theory has been used to justify many of NATO's interventions in the past few decades.

Walzer has in the past supported Israel's claim of a "just war" against Palestine, and has faced significant criticism for doing so.

But now he supports arming Ukraine rather than seeking diplomatic solutions to the conflict.

However, Zappala and Gallo believe that the ideas of the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy are the best explanation for NATO's position on the war in Ukraine.

Levy - who is known for his great support for Israel - claims that NATO's interventions against Russia in Syria, Libya, and now in Ukraine were not only justified but also vital, as there is no alternative to the West as the torchbearer of universal values.

And if the French thinker often supports military intervention, it is because he believes that other civilizations (Russian, Chinese and Islamic) if they prevail and become the dominant power on earth, will always pose a greater danger than war, no matter how costly and destructive the war.

While Levy sees himself as a champion of human rights and an advocate against dictatorships and authoritarianism, his opponents describe him as "an oligarch who serves the strong like personalities who monopolize all kinds of political, economic and cultural influence", a representative of a velvet bourgeoisie that exchanges interests, friendships, services and exerts pressure.

Despite all that the two writers have learned from the ideas of these philosophers, they assert that it cannot be certain that NATO leaders are actually inspired by their strategies from Habermas, Fukuyama, Walzer or Levy.