Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Crisis or Conspiracy

The on-going Russia-Ukraine conflict has raised several pertinent questions which need a valid explanation.  First and foremost, with the demise of the USSR in 1990 and resultant dismantlement of the WARSAW PACT (the Soviet led military alliance pitched against the US-led NATO) and the end of cold war, would it not have been prudent for the NATO also to wind up and to begin work on a new Euro-Atlantic security structure with active participation of the Russian Federation. The sensible answer is Yes.

But the Americans and its European allies, however, decided to expand eastwards, allegedly in breach of the assurances given to Russia in early nineties.  Between 1999-2004, taking advantage of a relatively weak Russia, the NATO had taken as many as 14 former Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics into its fold and has almost encircled Russia. For several years Russia watched it helplessly but with the advent of President Putin to power in 2000, there has been a notable change.

Russia reacted violently when NATO announced in 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine will eventually be members of NATO; this resulted in a war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008 and recognition of the self-declared independence of Georgia’s two breakaway regions (Abkhazia and South Ossetia); this was followed by annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014 and now full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Could not the Russia-Ukraine crisis be avoided had Ukraine/NATO agreed to Ukraine’s neutrality and its role as a buffer between Russia and European members of NATO? Such a step would not weaken NATO’s security whereas Russia’s security interests could be addressed to some extent. But it looks like that the Americans have a different game plan. They never had any intention to promote Russia’s incorporation into European economic or security structures as an equal partner. The Americans have always been on the lookout for suitable opportunities to weaken Russia.

Now that Russia has provided them with an opportunity on a platter by invading Ukraine, the Americans are taking full advantage to use this as a pretext to isolate Russia globally, impose crippling economic sanctions, exclude Russia from global financial systems and prolong the conflict as long as possible by providing economic and military assistance to Ukraine. They want to win their own war against Russia without firing a single bullet or sacrificing a single soldier. It really doesn’t matter to them if Ukraine gets devastated in the process.

Russia’s security concerns arising out of its encirclement by NATO are legitimate. But is Russia justified in invading Ukraine to achieve its objectives? The answer is both NO and YES. No, because it is against the basic tenets of international code of conduct including the non-violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity. Yes, because, the Americans have more than once intervened militarily in other countries on the pretext of protecting democracy or thwarting perceived threats to international security, though more often than not the real objective was to bring about a regime change. The American interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan fall in this category.

It can be argued that you cannot correct a wrong with a wrong. True, but then what about the concept of indivisible security? In the given case, can Ukraine secure its own security at the cost of Russia’s security. Imagine as to what would or should be India’s reaction in a scenario when any of India’s bordering countries is found working towards the establishment of military bases of China or Pakistan on its soil with India as a target?

And what about the right to self-determination of the people of Donbas region in Donetsk and Luhansk. Conveniently, the Western media is silent on the killings of over 15000 people in the conflict between the separatists and the Ukrainian military in East Ukraine in the last eight years.

So, the situation at the moment is that Russia is very unlikely to stop unless it has achieved all or some of its objectives by resorting to the concept that “might is right”: Ukraine’s neutrality on the issue of NATO membership, consolidation of its (Russia’s) position in the Southeast Ukraine, particularly from the Sea of Azov to Black Sea and a regime change in Ukraine to suit its interests.

By available indications, the US/NATO have no intention to go beyond severe economic sanctions (which in the past have never deterred Russia) but are more than willing to support Ukraine from outside including through military and financial support. Ukraine continues to suffer immensely in terms of loss of human life and destruction of infrastructure worth millions of dollars and setback to its economy, though Russia is also bearing the burden of huge expenditure on its military operations. Both military conflict and diplomacy are at work but unfortunately at this juncture there are no signs of any resolution in the very near future. The UN has once again proved that it has limitations when it comes to resolving armed conflicts.

At the end of the day, one wonders: is this conflict a genuine crisis or a result of a larger conspiracy to demolish Russia in general and President Putin in particular, wherein Ukraine is turning out to be a collateral damage.

******************