Currently, the West’s sanctions are destroying the Russian economy, but when it comes to strategic issues a country like Russia will never surrender, even if taken to the brink of collapse. Ukraine is of crucial interest and inestimable strategic value to Russia, and this should have been clear to the West long ago.
The main problems began at the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit, when NATO stated in its final declaration on April 3, 2008, that the Organization: “welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO”. These statements raised many concerns in the Kremlin, so much so that the Russian deputy foreign minister later replied that: “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which will have most serious consequences for pan-European security. Putin himself stated that: “Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO is a direct threat to Russia”. As many of you may remember, in August of the same year there was a war between Georgia and Russia; that war was a consequence of NATO’s statements.
On November 21, 2013, then-Ukrainian President Yanukovych rejected (under Russian pressure) an economic agreement with the European Union which would bring the two together economically. This refusal led to several street protests (the Maidan protests) to which Yanukovych responded with an iron fist; nearly one hundred people died in the February clashes. These events led to the removal of Yanukovych from power–thanks also to the mediation of the European Union. Once Yanukovych fled the country the political balance changed and the Ukrainian parliament on February 23rd voted on an act to repeal the laws on minority language. A few days later, on February 27, Russian units began setting up checkpoints in Crimea. In this context it should be noted that the Russians did not invade Crimea, they were already there. Russia had the leasing of some important military bases on the peninsula (just to remind you of Russia’s strategic interest in Ukraine). On March 6, Crimea’s parliament voted to become part of Russia and finally, on March 18, 2014, Russia incorporated Crimea. As we know, shortly after these events, heavy clashes occurred in eastern Ukraine between Russian-supported separatist troops and the Ukrainian government. Since then, the two countries have practically been at war.
What motivated the Russian reaction, and what motivates it today?
Putin doesn’t want to conquer Ukraine; he could have done it already. This does not mean, however, that his goals cannot change or that he has good intentions. Right now, Putin wants to wreck Ukraine: he wants to make it a defenseless and neutral state, he wants to make it a buffer zone again, as it was before. Putin is now telling the rest of the world that we have two choices: we can withdraw and make Ukraine a buffer state or he will destroy it. There is no scenario in which Ukraine will become a NATO country. The rationale is that Russia is a superpower and has no interest in allowing the United States and its allies to integrate a country of enormous strategic interest into their sphere of influence and control. This should not come as a surprise to the United States, since that is exactly what the Monroe Doctrine is about: nobody is allowed to move military forces into the western hemisphere (this was clear already in 1962). Can we imagine a military alliance between China and Mexico and the United States remaining silent in the face of a deployment of Chinese troops on the border with Mexico? Of course not: it’s not going to happen.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that we are in the twenty-first century, the concept of balance of power is still central. Furthermore, not all countries think that the United States is a benign hegemon that wants to promote stability; Russia, Iran and China are some examples. Since they don’t see it that way, we will have to be careful and consider how the rest of the world interprets actions that we think are benign. In fact, they interpret these actions as hostile behaviors. If we are not able to put ourselves in the shoes of those countries with whom we have to dialogue, then we may run into dangerous situations.
We cannot deny that the goal of the United States and the European Union in recent years has been to integrate Ukraine within the West, both economically and militarily. We cannot deny that since the fall of the URSS there has been a process of economic and military integration of many former Soviet republics, but if this was possible in the 1990s it doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do today. Times have changed and nothing has remained as it was during the Cold War, apart from Putin’s mentality.
What’s the West’s response?
Basically, the West is doubling down. Western countries are responding with hard measures as never before; we are blaming Russia without thinking about our own role and responsibilities. But this may be a losing hand.
Europe and NATO think they can punish Russia economically and so Putin will surrender. But when security considerations are at stake, countries will suffer enormously before they throw their hands up. In this context it should already be clear that Ukraine is vital to Russia, but it is not vital to the United States. Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for the West and NATO is demonstrating this by not sending troops and not intervening directly as happened in the Balkans. These choices reveal that global security issues are moving away from Europe.
Assuming that the attitude held so far works and that we can corner Putin, is that a good thing? Is it good to corner a country that has hundreds of nuclear weapons? We should remember that the only circumstance in which a country can choose to use such weapons is when it is desperate, when it thinks its survival is at stake.
What should the West do?
The West should explicitly abandon any possibility of NATO expanding eastward. Furthermore, it is necessary to implement an economic recovery plan for the Ukrainian economy together with Russia, the IMF and the EU. Finally, special guarantees should be created for minorities in Ukraine, especially in terms of languages rights; to date none of these options has ever been discussed or proposed.
Right now, we are isolating Putin from the West, and we are pushing him even more towards China. We are doing exactly the opposite of what we will need. We need Russia in Syria and Libya and to negotiate with Iran, but most of all we need Russia to counterbalance China. The South China Sea, Taiwan, and the islands disputed between China and Japan will be the new front, not Europe.
Putin is certainly a dictator and has brutally attacked Ukraine, an independent country. The West, however, is leading Ukraine on a very dangerous path, which will lead the country into a potentially devastating conflict (more than it already is). Making Ukraine a neutral and very economically strong country is the best thing that can happen to Ukrainians. What NATO is doing instead is encouraging Ukrainians to be tough with Russia, we are deluding them that they will eventually be made part of the West. What the citizens of Ukraine want is the end of the war and their independence; the quickest way to achieve this is to have the State economically stable and to remain in a neutral zone between EU and Russia.
Discussion about this post