Ukraine, Russia and the west

S P SETH

Let us face it. The continuing crisis in Ukraine has the potential of developing into a major conflagration with disastrous consequences notwithstanding the recent peace deal. And this is because the parties to the conflict in Ukraine have the direct or indirect support of some of the most powerful countries in the world. The reference here is to the US/NATO/European bloc with all its economic and military power. On the other side is Russia, though not with the same economic prowess, but determined to safeguard its strategic sphere against any further encroachment close to its borders perceived as a security threat. Not long ago, President Vladimir Putin had warned the US-led western bloc not to mess with Russia with its nuclear arsenal.

After the Soviet Union’s collapse, NATO (and EU) have expanded to include the Baltic states, once part of the Soviet Union, and its former defence partners in the Warsaw Pact, like Poland. These relatively new NATO members simultaneously feel secure (under NATO) and insecure that it might invite Russian counter response at some indeterminate time. To insure against their perpetual sense of insecurity they seek even greater NATO security commitments. Some of them, like Poland and Czech republic, would want US missile and radar facilities on their sites to ensure that Washington would be tightly involved in their defence. NATO is now putting together a rapid reaction force, initially of 5,000 personnel that might be expanded later, to assure NATO members bordering Russia that they would be protected.

Both Russia and NATO/EU have their own narratives about the Ukrainian crisis. Moscow believes that the then democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup stage managed by the US, pointing specifically to the presence of CIA chief John Brennan in Kiev. The alternative regime in Ukraine that followed was very keen on integrating with EU and over time to join NATO. In the process the resulting political polarization between Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine, keen to maintain close ties with Russia, and the Kiev regime made any political resolution difficult, with Moscow prepared to support eastern rebels politically and with weapons, though it denies the latter. The ongoing civil war has cost more than 6,000 lives with some of the major eastern centres looking like ghost towns, with both the Kiev regime and pro-Russian separatists targeting civilians.

On the other hand, the western narrative focuses largely on Russia’s role in fostering, fomenting and aiding, including with arms and personnel, Ukrainian separatism and an attack on its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indeed, Russia, at times, is accused of committing aggression against Ukraine and indirectly against Europe. George Soros, a prominent US public intellectual and a well-known hedge fund manager, writes in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books: “Europe needs to wake up and recognize that it is under attack from Russia” and urges the provision of financial and military aid for the Kiev regime.

The US has recently indicated that it is considering military aid for Ukraine to fight the separatists, but it hasn’t yet found support among prominent European countries like Germany and France. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel believes that it will only complicate and worsen the situation. Therefore, so far, the western bloc is following a policy amounting basically to an economic blockade of Russia. And President Obama is threatening more sanctions unless Russia backs off. The recent diplomatic initiative by Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Francois Hollande of France has led to a broad peace agreement for Ukraine. Announcing the new peace plan, hammered out between the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine in Minsk, Belarus, Putin said, “We have agreed on a ceasefire from midnight 15 February.” He added, “There is also the political settlement. The first thing is constitutional reform that should take into consideration the legitimate rights of people who live in Donbass [eastern Ukraine]. There are also border issues. Finally there are a whole range of economic and humanitarian issues.”

A good look Putin’s summation of the agreement would suggest that it is more like a catalogue of unsolved issues that lie at the heart of the Ukrainian crisis, without laying down a detailed pathway to peace. Unless there is a concrete blueprint to tackle the underlying issues in an orderly and time-bound framework, the new agreement is likely to go the way of the first Minsk peace plan. The previous ceasefire negotiated in September, also in Minsk, collapsed almost immediately after the deal. Since then, the Ukrainian separatists have advanced their positions to consolidate their hold on some of the important transport hubs. As for constitutional reform to grant autonomy to eastern Ukraine, Kiev’s understanding of it is to somehow fudge the issue while the rebels would settle for nothing less than a virtual independent state aligned with Russia--- basically an extended Russian zone of influence.

While the new peace plan is a helpful development if it holds, the chances of its going much further are rather dubious. In that case it would lead to even more western sanctions against Russia. As it is Russia’s economy is hurting from both western sanctions and the plunge in global oil price, an important revenue source for the country. With its foreign exchange reserves depleting, Russia is going to face some serious economic problems that might create difficult political issues for the regime. The Putin regime is going to frame this crisis, as it is already doing, as a western threat to its security and rally people around a patriotic cause. After the collapse of the Soviet Union blamed on the west, this new threat to Russia’s security might rally many patriotic Russians behind the regime, at least in the short period.

Putin has indicated that there will be economic difficulties for about 2 years. He obviously hopes that Russians can weather this crisis for a period. And there is some basis for this. First, Ukraine’s portrayal as a freedom loving country fighting for its sovereignty is grossly exaggerated. It is an economic basket case; corruption ridden and a good chunk of the governing coalition have fascist background. And even with the all the money thrown at it by western institutions, it is unlikely to become economically functional. As George Soros, who is a great proponent of economic sanctions against Russia, and military and economic aid to Ukraine, has pointed out, “… a Russian default [resulting from western sanctions] could cause considerable disruption in the global financial system with the euro area being particularly vulnerable.” He adds, “ Russia is in the midst of a financial crisis, which is helping to turn the threat of deflation in the Eurozone into a reality.”  

In other words, sanctions are not just hurting Russia but also Europe, though not as severely. And above all, if the Ukrainian crisis escalates, despite the recent peace proposals, it has the great potential of developing into some sort of a military confrontation between Russia and the west with Ukraine as its epicenter. It is, therefore, imperative for cool heads on both sides to de-escalate it by taking into account also Russia’s strategic concerns as part of a wider settlement. 

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au