Ukraine War: Latent Perspectives
It’s easy to blame Russia for the war in Ukraine. After all the war began when Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine. But headline news rarely provides a comprehensive analysis of geopolitical conflicts. It is indeed rare in human affairs that blame lies solely with one party. Interstate relations are always complex. And it is crucially important that we examine all aspects of such complexities in an effort to arrive at an accurate assessment of the context. Without such an in depth assessment attempts to mediate the conflict and achieve a stable peace will be futile. My goal here is to examine the roots of this conflict as deeply as possible.
Unprovoked War?
The consensus opinion is that Russia’s invasion into Ukraine was not only unjust but also entirely unprovoked. That consensus does not stand up to scrutiny, however. There are several facts which undermine the consensus opinion. The one counter argument that is relatively well known is that of NATO expansion. At the end of the Cold War, when German reunification was being negotiated, then Secretary of State James Baker made a commitment that NATO would not extend one inch further to the East. That promise was of course not kept as two successive waves of expansion took place. As the European Union expanded to the East, it effectively required new member states to join NATO before admission to the economic union. Essentially Russia drew a red line with regard to further expansion to include Ukraine. In fact this question was openly debated prior to the war.
A second factor to consider is the status of Crimea and the Donbas region. The West never accepted the annexation of Crimea into the Russian Federation in 2014 following the Maidan uprising in Kyiv. Crimea was incorporated into Czarist Russia under Catherine the Great more than two hundred years ago. The Russian base in Sevastopol is a key part of the Russian Federation’s defense structure. Following the break up of the Soviet Union when Ukraine became one of the newly independent states (within the CIS) Russia entered into a long term lease of Crimea in 1997. The West has portrayed the annexation of Crimea as an illegal invasion and has never recognized the plebiscite which was held, despite clear evidence that the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of accession. The West and Ukraine repeatedly indicate that Crimea is a central goal of the current war in disregard of history, Russia’s security situation and furthermore the will of the local population.
The Donbas region is a messier situation. The first thing to consider is that Ukraine, as constituted under Soviet rule and later as a member of the CIS, is divided along ethnic lines. In the eastern area the populace is largely Russian speaking while the western area is largely Ukrainian speaking. This division had been visible in elections in recent years with the East favoring pro-Russian policies and the West pro-EU. The Maidan uprising occurred out of anger over President Yanukovych’s decision to backtrack on a plan to negotiate entry to the EU. When Yanukovych was ousted and simultaneously with the annexation of Crimea a popular counter uprising began in the Donbas in favor of secession from Ukraine. That sentiment was indeed fueled by a decision of the Ukrainian Parliament to recognize Ukrainian as the sole national language. A civil conflict ensued within the region that was mediated by France and Germany. Those accords foresaw autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. All evidence indicates that Russia fully intended to respect the accords, but that Ukraine never intended to implement the agreement. Tellingly, Angela Merkel stated recently that the Minsk Accords were negotiated with the intent to buy time.
A third, less-known fact is that the US had the explicit intention of provoking Russia into an invasion of Ukraine. The Defense Department commissioned the Rand Corporation to prepare a study on ways to “overextend and unbalance” Russia. That study was published in 2019 during the Trump Presidency. The intent was to consider ways to weaken Russia, which is described as a peer competitor (evidently from a military and not an economic perspective). A prime recommendation was to embroil Russia in Ukraine. As part of that strategy the US had increased its military aid to Ukraine and had refused to negotiate on Russia’s demand to ensure Ukrainian neutrality and exclusion from talks on NATO membership. Given this fact as well as the previous historical perspectives it is apparent that Russia was most certainly provoked. The conclusion that is closer to reality is that Russia took the bait and proceeded launched its invasion.
Conduct of the War
War is always tragic. The idea of intelligent bombs and surgical strikes is a contemporary myth. Once a war begins suffering is ever present. That has certainly been the case in the Ukraine war. Artillery and missile strikes by both armies have caused civilian casualties. Millions of refugees have fled west from Ukraine and east to Russia. Nonetheless the evidence suggests that Russia’s goals so far have been to establish a land bridge between Russia and Crimea, which they achieved fairly quickly, and subsequently to adopt a more defensive posture within that captured region. Russia did not initiate hostilities with a shock and awe bombing campaign. Rather the invasion began with limited troop numbers to approach Kyiv and advance in the East and South to secure the land bridge. Until today Russia has not launched a major campaign to seize all of Ukraine.
During the early days of the war Ukraine and Russia initiated negotiations. We now know that the two sides initialed a memorandum of agreement to end hostilities. That draft peace agreement was then abandoned by Ukraine, Russian forces withdrew from positions around Kyiv, and Ukraine prepared for counter offensives against Russian army positions in the southeast with substantial military and economic support from the West. Hence, once again an opportunity for peace was lost following the failure to implement the Minsk Accords and the avoidance of substantive negotiations prior to the Russian invasion.
A further observation with regards to the conduct of the war offers insight and confirmation of US goals. The continuation of hostilities ‘for as long as it takes’ is consistent with the Rand study, i.e. to weaken Russia. Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, said precisely that early on. It is also indicative that Ukraine has now concentrated its military effort toward severing the land bridge while simultaneously targeting Crimea with missiles and drones. Clearly Ukraine and the US are intent on seizing control over Crimea and weakening Russia’s naval presence in the Black Sea. The goal of capturing Crimea is a major obstacle to peace, since it is a direct challenge to Russian defense and security. And, tragically this Ukrainian offensive was poorly planned with the result that the Ukrainian army has suffered huge losses with little success on the ground.
One of the more distasteful observations is that the US political establishment has repeatedly expressed satisfaction that the war is a great success. While ignoring the ongoing suffering in Ukraine Lindsay Graham and others have said that aid to Ukraine has been well spent, since it kills Russians without US casualties.
Follow the Money
Cui bono is always a relevant question. In this case it is perfectly evident that defense industries in the US and to a lesser degree in Western Europe are enjoying extraordinary sales and profits. Again some politicians in the US are cynically boasting that a large share of the military aid to Ukraine circles back to the US. That is certainly true, but only half the story. Ukraine is, of course, unable to pay for the military shipments it is receiving. Rather, the shipments are paid through increased Federal debt and so will ultimately fall upon taxpayers. But an even more sinister reality is in play here. The weaponry that the US and NATO countries are sending to Ukraine is often old materiel and equipment. The result is that Ukraine has been fighting with outmoded weaponry in limited supply, while the US and other NATO nations are replenishing their armaments with upgraded specifications.
Summary Thoughts
The war is an ongoing human tragedy. While Russia is absolutely culpable, the US and NATO share in the blame. An end to the war is urgently necessary. The longer the war continues, the greater the human suffering. Furthermore, the risks of escalation increase virtually every day. If Ukraine were to successfully threaten Crimea, it is very likely that Russia would respond with a full scale response against both Ukraine and likely the nations that have been facilitating Ukraine. A more likely forecast is that Russia will seize additional territory as Ukraine’s losses mount and its army faces fatigue. In that case the terms of a final settlement will become still more difficult for the West and Ukraine to accept.
The parameters of a settlement under current circumstances are fairly clear. Ukraine will need to accept a loss of some territory including that of Crimea and such agreement will need to be internationally recognized. A thornier issue has to do with security guarantees for the remaining Ukrainian State. Russia will undoubtedly demand that Ukraine remain permanently outside NATO. Ukraine for its part will require some manner of security, but without a NATO umbrella. Negotiations will be difficult to be sure, but the alternative both for Ukraine and the world is fraught with far greater risks.
At the heart of this war and the growing confrontations between major powers lies the question of hegemony. At the end of the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed the US became the sole, major power. Since then China has continued to rise economically as well as militarily. Russia meanwhile has stabilized. While Russia is now far weaker in economic terms, it remains strong militarily. Consequently the unipolar moment for US world hegemony has passed. The question now is whether to accept that global politics has entered a new phase of multi-polarity or whether to resist that trend. The evidence suggests that US policy has chosen confrontation over acceptance. While NATO is purportedly a defense organization, it’s continuing expansion would seem to be a contradiction, particularly given the weakened state of its historical opponent. Meanwhile the US has been actively strengthening alliances in Asia in confrontation with China. Confrontations to weaken adversaries and plans for encirclement are simply not a wise policy choice. Diplomacy and acceptance of multi-polarity represent a far better choice in the pursuit of peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment