The Ukraine Conundrum
More than four months have passed since the relatively bloody and rapid developments in Ukraine and the significance of recent events has caused the Ukrainian issue to become the most important topic of talks in the international community and between world powers, particularly the US and the EU on one hand and Russia on the other. In the shadow of the developments of the past two weeks, the fundamental question concerns the reason behind the turn of events in Ukraine and why Russia and Mr. Putin stand firm on their positions.
The events of the past few months in this region are rooted in the developments of the past twenty years, the collapse of the former Soviet Union and interactions between the US and Russia. Mr. Putin believes that the collapse of the communist camp was the biggest mistake in modern history and Russia must take advantage of every opportunity to revive and strengthen its power and the circle of its influence in Europe and particularly in the region of the former Soviet Union, and the western countries, especially the US, attempt to limit Russia and even seek Russia’s collapse.
During the past two decades, relations between Moscow and Washington relied on the excellent personal relations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. In fact, during Clinton’s tenure in the White House, he put Al Gore, the Vice President, and Strobe Talbott in charge of managing relations with Russia while Al Gore was not really concerned about foreign policy and his priorities were structural reform, technological development, and environmental protection. During this period, Russian officials used their personal relations with the White House and were able to strengthen the power of the central government and create a new political and economic oligarchy.
During the Clinton era, the Russians took maximal advantage of billions of dollars in aids from the West and the US to reconstruct its governmental production units and strengthen a new form of private sector which did not have any relation with real market economy. At that time, power was, more than ever before, in the hands of Mr. Yeltsin and his daughter, Tatyana, and relations between the US and Russia were managed in the economic cooperation commission led by Al Gore and Victor Chernomyrdin. But the attempts made by this commission to expand economic relations between the two parties were not successful and, in the last decade of the 20th century, the US accounted for only 5% of Russia’s foreign trade while 50% of Russia’s foreign trade was with the European Union.
The last year of the second millennium registered a bitter experience in the relations between the two sides. During the bombardment of Serbia by NATO planes, the Russians were belittled and although the Russians showed their power and temporarily occupied Pristina Airport, this movement did not stop the NATO attacks and the NATO forces continued their attacks until Slobodan Milosevic surrendered and captured one of the key Russian barricades in the Balkan region.
In 2002, despite their personal tendency, the Russians had no objection to the US attacks against Iraq and the downfall of Saddam, who had friendly relations with Moscow, and, at the same time, they witnessed new countries joining NATO and the EU. Between 2002 and 2007, ten countries of the former communist camp and even the new independent republics became members of NATO and the EU; a trend that limited the influence of the Russians.
The forward movement of the western countries and the US continued. Through the orange revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kirgizstan, the US attempted to expand its influence in the region of the former Soviet Union. Although they somehow succeeded by using the anti-communist and nationalist sentiments of the people of these countries and the colorful slogans of the market economy, democracy and civil society, the duration of these achievements was short and at the same time led to the awareness of the Russians. During this period when Putin played an unprecedented role in Russia’s power, economic, security and intelligence tools were used to the maximum level to limit the influence of the western countries and remove the forces that had western inclinations from these republics.
By concentrating on their area of influence in the former Soviet Union, the Russians gave a green light to another military and expansionist measure by the US which was the occupation of Afghanistan. Of course, the officials in Moscow were well aware of the bitter experience of the Afghan trap for the Red Army, thus, they did not oppose the entrapment of the western countries, particularly the US, in Afghanistan. They knew well that the American soldiers would not be able to leave Kabul with the pride of victory and although the US has made relative achievements in the occupation of Afghanistan, today they are forced to prepare themselves to leave this country while ignoring their strategic objectives. Certainly the American people will never forget the bitter memories of the return of hundreds of soldiers who lost their lives in this part of the world.
The Islamic Awakening and the Arab revolutions were also a determining stage in relations between the West and Russia. The Russians who were caught off-guard in the developments in Libya and the downfall of Ghaddafi by the West and the US and lost significant strategic interests in the area of oil and economic contracts with Libya, became aware of the situation. The Russians found out that the era of compromise and agreement with the US had ended and now that Russia has reached a desirable economic and political situation with increases in the price of energy and Europe’s severe dependency on its oil and gas, it ended its cooperation with the West and stood against the US and the European powers in the developments in Syria. Of course, the Russians moved cautiously in relations between Iran and the West and, in negotiations with the P5+1, they moved, more than ever before, on the axis of economic interests and limiting Iran’s strategic role in providing Europe’s energy.
During recent days, diplomatic attempts, particularly by the leaders of the western countries and the US, to reach a common solution with the Russians were strengthened by different threats and maneuvers of power but there is no unity in the positions of the western countries and the US. Russian plans have been successful in the complete monopoly of the energy sources of the EU’s economic triangle. Germany’s economy is intensely dependent upon Russia’s oil and gas. Europeans are entrapped by Russia and have no alternative in the short run. The only potential alternative is Iran but the process would be long.
The recent events in Ukraine have no immediate solution. In the US, both the administration and the Senate and the House of Representatives and the two Republican and Democratic parties are united on the issue of supporting the Ukrainian opposition and the fight against Russia but the tools of implementation and the power to maneuver are very limited. The Ukrainian army does not have enough field capacity to fight against the Russian army and the allied countries of the US in the region including Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic countries and even Poland are concerned about the negative impacts of the trend of developments in Ukraine and do not have sufficient military power. The more important issue is that in the international community, especially in the US, Russia’s influence and its right to veto has made the task more difficult for the West.
Is there any chance for Ukraine in the midst of the recent disputes? The answer to this important question is not pleasant at least for the Ukrainians. The Russians have a military base on their land and traditional influence in the Russian minority, and in the Black Sea the US Navy is much bigger and more powerful than Ukraine’s Navy and the navy of other littorals states of the Black Sea. In Ukraine’s political scene, there are no powerful and determined leaders to manage the present critical conditions. The present officials do not have enough experience and are seriously influenced by the ideas and propaganda of the western countries while the root of the problems of the people of Ukraine and their dissatisfaction lie in the economic shortcomings, poverty, corruption and bureaucracy.
Conclusion: The following points can be mentioned in a general assessment of the events of the past few months in Ukraine:
1- The recent developments will not have great achievements for the people of Ukraine or, at least, the people of Ukraine will not be the winners of the recent developments.
2- Russia is firm on its positions and will not compromise with the ineffective threats of the West. Putin knows well that surrendering on the issue of Ukraine would mean to step into the process of Russia’s collapse.
3- The US and the EU do not have the proper tools and the capacity to manage the developments and lead the situation towards their strategic interests.
4- The trend of developments, particularly the election in Crimea and the absolute vote of the people of the region for their independence, have created great concerns for the countries of south-eastern Europe especially Moldavia, Romania, Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia as cries of separatists and independent-seeking groups could be heard in most of the countries of the region.
5- The recent events in Ukraine have impacted the developments in Syria and the negotiations with the P5+1 and will reduce the stubbornness of the West on these issues.
6- More importantly, a new phase of the Cold War has begun which, with the change in the global geostrategic map, could bring dangerous consequences, including the changing of borders and even the start of the first extra-regional war in the third millennium for humanity, while changing the role of different pieces of the puzzle of power in Eastern Europe.