5 December, 2022

Blog

Ukrainian Crisis: Russia’s Blatant Aggression & The West’s Hypocrisy

By Mohamed Harees –

Lukman Harees

For months President Putin denied planning to attack Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, but the worrying news of him now having ordered troops into two rebel-held eastern regions, Donetsk and Luhansk, (in his words) to “maintain peace” and recognise them as independent has put the world in suspense. In an emotional speech announcing the move, he also laid claim to all of Ukraine as a country “created by Russia.” Russia has deployed at least 150,000 troops near Ukraine’s borders in recent months, and there are fears that its latest move marks the first step in a new invasion.

Ukraine has long played an important, yet sometimes overlooked, role in the global security order. Today, the country is on the front lines of a renewed great-power rivalry that many analysts say will dominate international relations in the decades ahead. For many analysts, the conflict marked a clear shift in the global security environment from a unipolar period of U.S. dominance to one defined by renewed competition between great power.

Pozner, a longtime Russian television journalist, sums up the explosive situation in an interview thus, ‘The smell of war is very strong. If we talk about the relationship between Russia and the West — and in particular, the United States — I feel that it is as bad as it was at any time in the Cold War, and perhaps, in a certain sense, even worse.” As clamours for war reach a fever pitch, there has been much discussion of how the West might retaliate against Russia should it invade Ukraine. As President Biden begins to rally its partners to oppose the Russian “aggression”, by imposing tough sanctions, and considering military support to the beleaguered Ukraine, no one knows just how the world will emerge from the crisis — whether it will fizzle out or Putin will make use of this standoff between Russia and Ukraine to launch the biggest military offensive in Europe since 1945. However, experts look beyond the immediacy of this conflict and sees Putin’s overarching aim to revise the outcome of the original Cold War, even if it is at the cost of deepening a new one.

Antagonism between Ukraine and Russia has been simmering since 2014, when the Russian military crossed into Ukrainian territory, after an uprising in Ukraine replaced their Russia-friendly president with a Western-facing government. Russia annexed Crimea and inspired a separatist movement in the east. A cease-fire was negotiated in 2015, but fighting continued. Russia has been unnerved by NATO’s eastward expansion and Ukraine’s growing closeness with the West. Russia was unnerved when an uprising in 2014 replaced Ukraine’s Russia-friendly president with an unequivocally Western-facing government. Ukraine’s lurch away from Russian influence felt like the final death knell for Russian power in Eastern Europe. Besides, most former Soviet republics and allies in Europe had already joined the European Union or NATO. While Ukraine is not part of the European Union or NATO, it receives financial and military aid from the United States and Europe. “It was always Putin’s goal to restore Russia to the status of a great power in northern Eurasia,” writes Gerard Toal, an international affairs professor at Virginia Tech, in his book Near Abroad “The end goal was not to re-create the Soviet Union but to make Russia great again.”

The West led by the US, NATO and Russia have been engaged in a whirlwind of diplomatic talks to prevent an escalation of the conflict. In December 2021, Russia put forth a set of demands, including a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO. The West dismissed those demands and threatened economic consequences. To the US and its European allies, Ukraine matters in part because they see it as a bellwether for their own influence, and for Russian intentions in the rest of Europe. The Russian strongman’s decision to amass a monumental force to Ukraine’s north, east and south in order was perhaps to signal that the Kremlin sees the former Soviet republic’s pro-Western shift as such a dire threat that it is willing to fight a war to stop it.

What US actually fears is that any Russian invasion would both further threaten American dominance over world affairs, established after the end of the cold war, and also accelerate the process of waning of its influence over global affairs seen in the past decade. True, Putin’s actions appear to be laying the groundwork for wider intervention in Ukraine. But the economic damage of Western-imposed sanctions, and the death toll of a war, might be too great a cost for Moscow to bear.

Ukraine borders several NATO states. There will be a great deal of concern that this is not just something happening nearby that could have spillover effects — but that their security would be threatened. The human toll of the Russia-instigated war in eastern Ukraine, which has claimed over 10,000 lives since 2014, remains underreported. Experts say that a full Russian invasion could also send 1 million to 5 million refugees fleeing Ukraine. It will be a continent-wide humanitarian disaster with millions of refugees seeking protection in neighbouring European countries. But the “scale of the global reaction depends on the extent of Russia’s insertion into Ukraine”. Much would also depend on the NATO response, and countries that could find themselves in the firing line would quickly notice an increased troop presence. Possibly, the US and allies could send extra deployments to Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary in the coming days. British PM Boris Johnson pledged that UK would contribute to any new NATO deployment in the wake of an attack, while French President Emmanuel Macron said the “the cost will be very high” if Putin decides to move.

The economic fallout of an invasion is wrought with unknowns, but there are several possible knock-on effects that have worried experts since the buildup of Russian troops near the Ukrainian border first became clear. Most directly, a disruption to Ukraine’s agricultural production could have a direct impact on food supply. Some of the world’s main grain supplies are routed through the Black Sea, which borders both Russia and Ukraine, two major wheat producers. Military action could disrupt both grain production and distribution, raising food costs for consumers across the world. Also, Russia supplies about a third of Europe’s gas, much of which is currently shipped through Ukraine. Any disruption at either end of that supply chain would force European countries to look elsewhere for fuel, most likely raising world oil prices.

Thus, while there is a need for the United Nations to maintain international peace and security in the region, the West primarily frames Ukraine’s standoff with Russia in terms of maintaining the balance of power in Europe and ensuring the continuity of European energy supplies. Analysts generally expect a wide-ranging package of sanctions that could hit major Russian banks, the oil and gas sector, and technology imports. But the effects on Europe and the rest of the world would be felt, too.

Yet other experts feel that the narrative about Russia invading Ukraine is being fed by nameless, anonymous officials to the media, while it’s far from clear that this is an accurate description of Russian plans. Instead, independent think-tanks specialised in military analysis believe that more realistic threats around Russia would be of a hybrid nature, for example, cyberattacks, attacks on infrastructure. The view from Ukraine is that the media scare comes from American media. This level of hysteria already has negative consequences and actually damages Ukraine. As for the US, this is speculation, but the US might still try to undermine the Nord Stream project, the pipeline between Russia and Germany. There is a very clear economic interest – there are gas producers in the US who are direct competitors with Russia.

There are other speculations this may be related to the defeat in Afghanistan, and again, when Biden’s support is declining at home, intensifying foreign policy may be one of the solutions. In the case of the British, and specifically in case of a very recent press release by the UK Foreign Office about the Russian government’s plans in Ukraine, some experts feel that it’s quite evidently connected to the troubles of [UK Prime Minister] Boris Johnson. When you’re attacked at home, it’s quite typical to start escalating foreign policy.

Whatever it may be, an invasion of Ukraine would explicitly violate one of the most cherished and central norms of international law: the prohibition of aggression. Article 3 of Resolution 3314, adopted without a vote by the UN General Assembly in 1974, defines aggression as “[t]he invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof”. Thus, there is no question that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be an illegal act of aggression and would trigger the full responsibility of Russia as a state for all its consequences. Such aggression would not only violate the sovereignty of Ukraine, but it would also be an assault on the peace and security of the international community. And most importantly, it would violate the rights of the countless human beings on both sides of the conflict who would inevitably be harmed by it. The significance of international law is however not only in how it leads to punishment but also in how it prevents violations in the first place.

The events in Ukraine, however, should not be viewed in isolation, as if they came from nowhere. US and its Western allies should not forget its grim records on invasion of other countries. Disregard for international law in the post–Cold War era was thoroughly demonstrated in the American invasion of Iraq. The United States used force to accomplish “regime change”; it disregarded the Security Council; it used private contractors and unidentified agents in place of identifiable troops. While it did not formally redraw the borders of Iraq, informally the north of Iraq has operated as an autonomous Kurdish region since the invasion. The United States had no more legal right to invade Iraq than Russia had to seize Crimea or Ukraine.

Of course, American violations of international law in Iraq are no excuse for Russian actions today. America — and Iraq — paid a steep price in blood and treasure for that decision to flout international law. Nevertheless, that past has certainly weakened the ability of the US and its Western allies to claim the high ground of law or even to rally support for Ukraine. To the rest of the world, all of it looks like the misbehaviour of nations that still dream of spheres of influence.  The international legal order of national security is now a pack of shambles. It will take considerably more than a settlement in Ukraine to put it back together.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 5
    1

    Thanks, Lukman Harees,
    .
    And others who have drawn out attention to the terrible things that Putin is doing, so that we (from a country that has made ourselves a joke) at least remain aware of wider issues.
    .
    Far too many of us imagine that it is sophisticated and clever to make make excuses for evil people like Vladimir Putin. Ukraine gave up its arsenal of Nuclear Weapons many years ago, and wanted to have a peaceful country. Are we to blame them for asking for realistic safeguards by joining NATO, etc?
    .
    Is it necessary for us to place what is happening in all sorts of contexts before condemning within our minds at the very least (since we are powerless to do any more) what Putin, the manipulative dictator is doing? We should follow what is happening with concern. Here’s a later report than the one I submitted as response to Nathan’s comment on Kumar David’s article:
    .
    https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-moscow-kyiv-626a8c5ec22217bacb24ece60fac4fe1
    .
    The complexities are beyond me; religions, I’m fed up with, but I don’t want to see our moral senses dead, owing to seeing every situation as relative to some other concern of ours.
    .
    Panini Edirisinhe
    of Bandarawela

    • 5
      0

      Putin used the same arguments to annex parts of Ukraine that Hitler used to annex part of Czechoslovakia. In that case the people he was saving were Germans.Putin is saving Russians.
      What if India decided to annex our NE on the grounds that it is ethnically similar and was in the same empire before 1948, ?
      Russia has lost its claim to moral superiority. So sad.
      Conclusion? All empires are the same.

  • 0
    5

    Putin said no invasion of Ukraine.
    Russia has recognized two regions that have asserted independence from Ukraine for over 7 years.
    Russia will defend them in case of further attacks by Ukraine.
    But there is no need for aggression now, and there will be no attack unless Ukraine declares war.

    • 0
      0

      This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.

      For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2

    • 3
      0

      Yes, you are right. Putin said “no invasion of Ukraine, no aggression, no attacks” , not just to you but the German, French and few other nation heads when they met days before invasion, hoping to avoid crisis.

    • 1
      2

      Guessed wrong.
      It looks like Putin is not taking chances.

      • 4
        0

        Guessed wrong , Is that so ?? How long do you think Putin would have planned such coordinated attack ???? That will explain why the West was not taking any chances with Putin until now.

        • 0
          4

          Certainly after the US organized the coup in 2014.

          • 0
            0

            Yet another gurss of yours??

  • 6
    1

    MH, not a media scare anymore. It’s called intelligence and not predictions. Whatever time line told by western media came true. Hours before invasion Biden called Ukrainian head to give the bad news. As in Crimea, do people really expect international leaders to idel, until and after Putin invades a country. Now it’s clear, Biden and Boris did not want a war but Putin desperately wanted one.

    • 3
      1

      Russians may genuinely have some security concerns related to NATO expansion (from 2014) but it’s the KGB guy who wanted the war, Reason 1) When German , French and few others nation heads dashed to Russia to prevent crisis, Putin told them that he has no plans to invade Ukraine 2) The multi pronged attack from three directions simultaneously using land, sea and air strike are indicative of months of covert planning. Putin like Rajapaksas was lying so much so the Russian representative presiding security council meeting on very same day of invasion was unaware and was told so, by the emotional Ukrainian delegate during the meeting. 3) U.S or the NATO did not provoke the war in anyway right before invasion other than warning not to do so. U.S suspected of Putin’s plan and had intelligence to confirm it. Hence they warned about an invasion almost a month ago and was precisely updating until the very last moment 4) EU even predicted what exactly the excuses Putin will provide for the invasion . So called pundits as usual called it a “western media hysteria” 5) For Lankans who are used to silly politics these may sound normal because Rajapaksas never spoke truth in their life. 6) Regardless of who,s side Lankans are this new development will be death knell of Lankan economy/recovery. 7) DAN SEPADA???

    • 2
      0

      Yes, chiv, we’ve got to give Biden a little credit for that, but I say that his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan is what made Putin dare this:
      .
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/24/biden-ukraine-russia-republicans-democrats-us-politics
      .
      Yesterday, I followed some excellent discussions on “deutsche welle”. Today, I’m just listening to this:
      .
      https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097
      .
      And there’s these 5 minutes from Professor Tim Wilson:
      .
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJbw9MDX9c
      .
      I think that from these sources we get reasonably unbiased views.

  • 5
    1

    Lots of good information. Thanks.

    Wonder what Trump might do that’s different. Guess he’d get Russia in an alternate NATO pact. Biden desperately tried to get Russia in with NATO pacts, but Putin wants he own kingdom. Russia took on IMF loans, but did not use it to develop his country. Instead, the mainstay of the Russian economy was oligarchic development via Western banks.

    • 0
      4

      Trump would not have escalated the crisis.
      Biden went on the aggressive from Day 1.

      • 4
        0

        Yes Trump would have gift wrapped with a love note but Biden was not for it.

        • 0
          4

          Trump had 4 years to gift-wrap, but avoided trouble.
          What has Biden achieved? A worse cockup than in Afghanistan.

          • 3
            0

            Much as we looked up at Trump for not escalating wars, his only goal was to build up the global oligarchic base and use it for trade and global balance. With money, stuck at the top with little resources for the masses, nothing destructive can emerge….but nothing productive either. It will be at a long term stagnation and stalemate at the expense the masses who would have to continually struggle through their existence. He would have probably given Ukraine to Putin on a platter, and collected tithe. Very simplistic and easy way of governing.

            Biden on the other hand, networks through many situations and scenarios. He got rid of the Afghanistan war. He is developing NATO that will benefit over a billion people, and most of the globe. Guess Putin could have joined NATO too, except that he wants American-type power in his own domain. However, his power is not democratic, but an autocratic dictatorship.

  • 4
    1

    Russia has been licking its wounds over the breakage of the Soviet Empire.
    .
    Ukraine has been a tinder box ever since.
    .
    NATO creeping in on its backyard annoyed Russia. Ukraine playing into the hands of US annoyed Russia even more.
    .
    It is the turn of US to lick its wounds!

    • 3
      2

      N
      The US made certain pledges to Gorbachev about not expanding NATO boundary towards Russia.
      The US could cheat Gorbachev, could kick Yesltsin about like a football. Nothing worked with Putin. He learned his lesson Syria and Libya. Taught the US a lesson in Georgia and Syria.
      Have you heard of the Minsk Protocol of 2014? It was breach of that by Ukraine which led to this tragedy. He was encouraged to provoke Russia by the US and NATO.
      Check on attacks on Russians by Ukrainian fascists who had a share in power after the coup of 2014.
      The man who salvaged the Russian economy from tatters by 2006 knows the language that US understands best.

  • 1
    1

    SJ is dead right. Since the collapse of the USSR US and its allies have encircled Russia by expanding NATO. All that Russia asked Ukraine is not to join NATO because of the legitimate security concerns. Added is the factor Ukraine has been treating discriminately its Russian citizens in the field of education, jobs etc.
    According to a survey, Russian is used at home by 43–46% of the population of the country (in other words a similar proportion to Ukrainian) and Russophones make up a majority of the population in Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine: Autonomous Republic of Crimea — 97% of the population is Russian.
    Will the US allow Russia to build military bases in Cuba or any other Latin American countries?
    He convinced President Monroe to make a unilateral declaration of American policy—known as the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe announced that the Western Hemisphere was henceforth closed to further European colonization or puppet monarchs. He also said that the United States would not interfere in internal European affairs.
    For much of the nineteenth century, the United States lacked the military strength to prevent European intervention in the New World. But since European meddling threatened British as well as American interests, the Monroe Doctrine was enforced by the Royal Navy.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.