Yet Another Western-Led Disaster

Ukrainian casualties may skyrocket following the invasion by its gigantic neighbour. That the West continues to despise the intervention as part of Russian expansionism seems inappropriate, as it is the former that has put yet another nation on the verge of collapse and re-ignited global tensions. Ukraine has for long remained an integral part of Russia until 1991, when the USSR collapsed and the former gained independence. The main aim of the US and its European allies has since been to make it a Western stronghold in Europe. The US opposing Russian influence in Europe while at the same time having an incomparable record of foreign interventions remains completely unjustified.

The issue began with various false assurances given to Soviet leaders regarding the non-expansion of NATO eastward and the preservation of Soviet (or Russian) security interests. On the contrary, NATO has expanded five times since then. Russia was left relatively weak, with the West facing no threat from it; nevertheless, the latter continued increasing its influence in Europe to advance Western ideals, as witnessed in the Kosovo war, and not for security reasons. After gradually closing in on Russia, they are now at its doorstep. A cautious and practical approach to international relations entails keeping border threats under check.

After all, the United States refused to allow Cuba to install nuclear missiles in 1962 because it would have jeopardised its security, while at the same time, it had placed missiles in Turkey against the Soviets. What about the Monroe Doctrine, which prohibited any kind of intervention in the Western Hemisphere? Would the United States ever let Russia form a military alliance with Mexico as a member? Will China let the USA form a base in Taiwan? Never. As a result, Russia’s security fears about NATO’s “encirclement” are well-founded. The EU’s economic expansion is another factor to be considered, which aims to economically integrate Ukraine into the West. This concern also seems fair, as accepting loans and aid to Ukraine would push it into an inescapable trap, morphing it gradually into a Western puppet that Russia would resent.

In April 2008 during the Bucharest Summit, when NATO officially proclaimed that Georgia and Ukraine would join the alliance, the problem sparked off. Following this, the Russian leadership warned that allowing these two countries to join NATO would pose an imminent danger to Russia. The unambiguous message sent by Russia’s invasion of Georgia the same year should have left no question in the minds of these Western imperialists, who did not forsake their goals.

Until 2013, Ukraine’s position was far from dire. In 2013, the then democratically elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who had been negotiating an economic agreement with the EU rejected it and accepted Russia’s comparatively better counteroffer, sparking protests. The protests had other reasons, which were Ukraine’s internal affairs, and any sort of Western intervention was, strictly speaking, not required. Violence ensued, resulting in few casualties; however, the government reached an agreement with the opposition, providing concessions, new elections, and a requirement that both sides end violence, which may be described as an almost complete surrender of power. However, the extremist protestors refused to accept the compromise, and the protests turned even more violent, forcing Viktor to escape the country the next day. During the crisis, both Russia and the United States were heavily involved. While the former was constantly attempting to persuade Ukraine’s authorities to put an end to the demonstrations, the latter, as is customary, could not accept a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and, taking advantage of the chance, interfered on the side of the demonstrators. It is even suspected that the US played a role in overthrowing Viktor’s government in an illegitimate coup. Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s new administration was pro-Western and anti-Russian, and the West was satisfied.

Soon after, Russia invaded Crimea, which, contrary to popular belief, was more or less a spontaneous action prompted by Russian concerns and in retaliation to Victor’s dismissal. Although an invasion is illegal under international law, it could be more or less defensible because Putin had been provoked unjustly. Obama declined to assist Ukraine over Crimea, which increased Russian morale and only imposed sanctions. The ambiguity was plain to see. Nonetheless, Russia had proved its point and gained the upper hand, having achieved supremacy in the Black Sea. Even at this time, had the West stopped and considered the problem practically, the crisis would have de-escalated rather than become complicated. Meanwhile, pro-Russian riots erupted in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk) region, nicknamed “Russian Spring”, which Moscow has subsequently backed to stay active in Ukraine. There had been satellite images of Russian troops, artillery, and tanks entering the area. This was being done to aid the rebels, prevent them from being crushed by Ukrainian forces, and show the West that he (Putin) would destroy the nation before it fell into their (West) clutches. Two Minsk accords were reached, but both fell apart owing to ceasefire breaches by the Ukrainian side. Slowly, the pro-Western Ukrainian administration began to advocate for NATO membership, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged two years earlier that joining NATO was a major national objective. Since then, Russia has steadily continued to increase its army presence along the Ukrainian border and has repeatedly requested assurances that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO. But, after all, neither party was willing to work together. Direct talks between the US and Russia were held in Geneva last year, but no results were produced since both parties were unable to achieve an agreement on the issue. The invasion is a direct blow to the United States and its European allies, as it was the result of a deceptive and unplanned Western foreign policy and has made losses to Ukraine inevitable.

Employing a realistic foreign policy guided by the objective of true world peace must be the West’s top-most priority at the moment, and it should engage in friendly negotiations with Russia. Ukraine is neither a member of NATO nor a part of its security zone; the USA has no duty to protect it, as witnessed by the latter’s unwillingness to provide military assistance to the former in the past, as well as its inaction, which now plainly demonstrates that Ukraine is not of as strategic significance to the USA as it is to Putin and Russia. Given the West’s duplicity and the strategic importance of its immediate neighbour (Russia), Ukraine should relinquish its quest for NATO membership as well. Both the USA and Russia should act reasonably, putting their respective interests aside and giving priority to Ukraine’s interests, since it has been reduced to nothing more than a playing field, not much different from Syria, as a result of a modern cold war between the two, initiated by the destructive-hegemonic attitude of the West.