Ukraine crisis as a Matryoshka doll set

Russia has given official recognition to two provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk/Luhansk, in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, which have been seeking autonomy from Ukraine since 2014. Moscow has sent its army for protection under the guise of being a ‘Russian peacekeeping force’. Separatists and the Russian ethnic minority who populate the region from the ongoing civil war. This prompted outrage from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and calls for de-escalation from the rest of the world as well.

The war in Ukraine would be a disaster for Europe and the world. Therefore, in addition to de-escalation, a review of the security architecture and a reality and narrative check is also necessary. The security of one military alliance at the expense of the other will not work.

Ukraine’s two provinces are claiming independence after Crimea’s annexation in 2014 over similar tensions. Populated mainly by Russian ethnic minorities striving for independence, separatist leaders backed by Moscow seized these two regions and declared the ‘People’s Republic of Donetsk and Lugansk’ in 2014. Since then, separatists have run the government, using the ruble for currency and keeping in touch. with Russia.

West vs Moscow

The US-led West sees Moscow’s recognition of this independence and the creation of its military on the Ukrainian border as a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law. Russia, on the other hand, justifies its position and at the same time protects the security of ethnic Russians living in Donetsk and Lugansk which is on the Russian border. The events surrounding it need clarification.

Negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) led to the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Protocols. The protocol proposed a ceasefire, decentralization of power without recognizing the autonomous republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, a pulling-out army and a number of heavy weapons 15 kilometers from the line of contact.

However, the breakdown of the armistice resulted in fighting between the Ukrainian army and Moscow-backed rebels killing 14,000 people. Re-negotiations between France, Germany and Ukraine with Russia, called the Normandy-Paris process in 2019, have failed as the Russians seek legal guarantees of security that the West refuses.

Ethnic Russian in focus

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly stated 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 excessive action in a neighboring country.

Concerns of Russian ethnic minorities have risen after a coup in Ukraine in 2013–14 and overturned a pro-Russian regime that was blamed for the annexation of Crimea. Under the chairmanship of the ultra-nationalist Volodymyr Zelensky, laws were passed to make Ukraine the sole official language. The civil strife of the separatists escalated. 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 taken to Russia.

Ukraine’s proposals to join NATO have added fuel to the existing Ukrainian fire and are opposed collectively in Russia because: one, NATO membership allows Ukraine to firmly regain the autonomous regions of Lugansk and Donetsk/Donbass. Will give additional strength and will also go to Crimea and hold ports in the Black Sea region.

Second, NATO has steadily expanded to include 13 former Middle East European countries, all of which are well armed and where Russia is a major threat. NATO missiles from Ukraine can reach Moscow in five minutes.

Third, during the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a weakened Russia made repeated offers of cooperation, equal treatment and better relations. For example, Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev was promised that NATO would not expand eastward during talks with the US Secretary of State in 1989. But first 10 and then three more Middle East European states joined NATO. OSCE and the Paris Charter of Europe signed a mutual cooperation with Russia in 1990 to advance peace and security. Russian leader Boris Yeltsin made several concessions since the 1990s to accommodate NATO positions, including in Serbia.

Fourth, the 1994 Russo-NATO Partnership for Peace (a program of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries) and the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 made a commitment that NATO and Russian security would not be undermined. The OSCE-Charter for European Security of 1999 declared that the security of the countries of Europe would not be undermined at the expense of other countries.

Five, Ukraine is the buffer and bridge between Russia and Europe. Most of the first attacks on Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler, were from Ukraine, just as Russia’s route to Europe for transportation and oil pipelines goes through Ukraine.

Six, in the aftermath of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and the War on Terror, Russia was supporting American concerns. Now, Russia has achieved strategic parity under Mr. Putin. US President Joe Biden has rejected any written commitment from NATO to Russian security. Mr. Putin is ready for a face-off. NATO missiles near the border are a red line.

It rejuvenates America

The standoff with Russia offers Mr Biden many opportunities. The dominant and single narrative is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has the right to join NATO. Russia’s position and sending its forces as peacekeepers would entail heavy sanctions that could hurt and isolate Russia. Russia has offered Mr Biden an opportunity to put a frayed European coalition back behind the US in the event of a major threat. France and Germany are taking relatively autonomous steps away from NATO but have been forced to accept US leadership, presence and control in Europe.

France is troubled by the US cutting the sale of French nuclear submarines to Australia when the US announced the creation of the AUKUS, or the trilateral security partnership between Australia, Britain and the US (France also withdrew its ambassador from the US and Australia). called). The US is unhappy and distressed by the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project that could provide Russian gas to Germany at very reasonable rates. As the US seeks buyers for its own broken down and more expensive oil, it will be a great and captive market. The Nord Stream Pipeline, which is ready to be commissioned, will now have a major delay or may 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 polarized between ‘pro-Russian’ and anti-Russian politics. Neo-liberal policies and majoritarian politics have led to separatist movements and civil wars from ethnic Russian minority areas. Russia is fishing in troubled Ukrainian waters.

Most countries outside the West such as India and even China, which initially spoke in support of Russian actions, are now calling for a de-escalation and understand the need for an inclusive security. They do not wish for a unipolar or bipolar international order. It is clear that the existential crises of our century are those of climate, ecological damage, pandemics, sustainable development and social justice. None of this can be addressed by the Ukrainian standoff.

Therefore, the Ukrainian crisis has many crises coming out as one. It reveals the importance of inclusive citizenship, and accommodating ethnic and other minorities, rights and social unity. The crisis calls for an inclusive and common security and rebuilding of key narratives.

Anuradha M. Chenoy is Professor and Retired Dean, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. She is Adjunct Professor at Jindal Global University