Russia has granted official recognition to two provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk/Luhansk, in Eastern Ukraine’s Donbass region that have been seeking autonomy from Ukraine since 2014. Moscow has sent its army, under the guise of being ‘Russian Peacekeeping Forces’, to protect the separatists and Russian ethnic minorities who populate this region from the ongoing civil war. This has prompted outrage from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and also calls from the rest of the world for de-escalation.
A war in Ukraine would be a disaster for Europe and the world. So, besides de-escalation, a review of the security architecture and a reality and narrative check are also essential. Security of one military alliance at the cost of the other will not work.
The two provinces of Ukraine asserting independence is a second time after Crimea broke away in 2014 on account of similar tensions. Populated primarily by Russian ethnic minorities striving for independence, separatist leaders supported by Moscow seized these two regions and declared the ‘People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk’ in 2014. Since then, the separatists run a government, use the rouble for currency and maintain contacts with Russia.
The West versus Moscow
The West led by the U.S. sees Moscow’s recognition of this independence and the building of its army on the Ukrainian border as a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law. Russia on the other hand justifies its position as safeguarding its own as well the security of ethnic Russians living in Donetsk and Lugansk which is on the Russian border. The events around this need explanation.
Talks between Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) led to the Minsk Protocols of 2014 and 2015. This Protocol proposed a ceasefire, decentralising power without recognising the autonomous Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, a pulling out of forces and heavy weaponry 15 kilometres from the Line of Contact.
However, breakdowns of the ceasefire led to 14,000 people being killed in the fighting between the Ukrainian army and Moscow-supported rebels. Talks again between France, Germany, Ukraine with Russia, called the Normandy-Paris Process in 2019, have not yielded success because the Russians want a legal guarantee of security that the West refuses.
Ethnic Russians in focus
The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly said that Russia would protect ethnic Russians especially since they became subjects of new countries after the Soviet breakup. No Russian President can survive if ethnic Russians face extreme actions in a neighbouring country.
The anxieties of Russian ethnic minorities have increased after the coup in Ukraine in 2013-14 and overturned a pro-Russian regime that was blamed for letting Crimea secede. Under the presidency of ultra nationalist Volodymyr Zelensky, laws were passed making Ukrainian the only official language. The civil strife from separatists increased. Sadly, NATO and the European Union were not vocal on this violation of citizenship rights. So, Russia stepped in. Thousands of Russian ethnic minorities were given Russian passports and evacuated to Russia.
The proposals for Ukraine to join NATO have added fuel to the existing Ukrainian fire and are opposed collectively in Russia because: one, NATO membership would give Ukraine additional muscle to forcefully regain the autonomous regions of Lugansk and Donestsk/Donbas and also move into Crimea and hold the ports in the Black Sea region.
Two, NATO has continuously expanded to include 13 former Central East European countries, all of which are well armed and where Russia poses the major threat. NATO missiles from Ukraine could reach Moscow in five minutes.
Three, through the 1990s after the Soviet collapse, a weakened Russia made repeated offers of collaboration, equal treatment and better relations. For example, Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand eastwards during his talks with the U.S. Secretary of State in 1989. But at first 10 and then three more central east European states joined NATO. The OSCE and Europe’s Paris Charter signed a mutual cooperation for steps forward in peace and security with Russia in 1990. Russian leader Boris Yeltsin made several concessions from the 1990s to accommodate NATO positions including in Serbia.
Four, the Russia-NATO Partnership for Peace of 1994 (a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries) and the NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997 made a commitment that NATO and Russian security would not be undermined. The 1999 OSCE-Charter for European Security declared that the security of countries in Europe would not be undermined at the expense of the other.
Five, Ukraine is the buffer and bridge between Russia and Europe. All the attacks on Russia earlier, from Napoleon to Hitler, came through Ukraine, just as Russia’s route to Europe for transport and oil pipelines is through Ukraine.
Six, after the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and the war on terror, Russia was supportive of U.S. concerns. Now, Russia under Mr. Putin has achieved strategic parity. U.S. President Joe Biden has rejected any written commitment for Russian security from NATO. Mr. Putin is prepared for a faceoff. NATO missiles near the border are a red line.
This rejuvenates the U.S.
The standoff with Russia provides Mr. Biden with several opportunities. The dominant and single narrative is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has the right to join NATO. Russia’s positions and its sending its army as peacekeepers will lead to heavy sanctions that could hurt and isolate Russia. Russia has provided Mr. Biden the opportunity to bring a fraying European alliance back behind America in the face of a major threat. France and Germany have been taking comparatively autonomous steps from NATO but have been forced back to accept U.S. leadership, presence and control in Europe.
France is upset on account of the U.S. undercutting the sale of French nuclear submarines to Australia when America announced the creation of AUKUS, or the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. (France even recalled its ambassador from the U.S. and Australia). The U.S. has been unhappy and sore with the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project that could provide Germany Russian gas at very reasonable rates. Since the U.S. is seeking buyers for their own fracked and more expensive oil, this would be a great and captive market. The Nord Stream pipeline that is ready to be commissioned will now suffer major delays or could even be stopped. This will come at a great cost to Russia, Germany and Europe.
Spotlight on Ukraine
For Ukraine, which is already suffering from economic crises, inflation and huge gas bills, this is the worst self-inflicted crisis. Ukraine has been completely dependent on Russia for oil; it is a country deeply polarised between ‘pro-Russian’ and anti-Russian politics. Neo-liberal policies and majoritarian politics have furthered secessionist movements and civil wars from ethnic Russian minority regions. Russia has been fishing in troubled Ukrainian waters.
Most countries outside the West such as India and even China, that initially spoke in support of Russian actions, are now asking for a de-escalation and understand the need for an inclusive security. They do not wish for a unipolar or a bipolar international system. It is clear that the existential crises of our century are those of climate, ecological damage, pandemics, sustainable development and social justice. None of these can be addressed by the Ukrainian standoff.
The Ukrainian crisis is, therefore, multiple crises unfolding as one. It reveals the importance of inclusive citizenship, and accommodating ethnic and other minorities, rights and social cohesion. The crises call for an inclusive and common security and a deconstruction of dominant narratives.
Anuradha M. Chenoy is professor and retired Dean, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. She is Adjunct Professor, Jindal Global University
