For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the West has been this shrill in painting Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as the devil. The reason is, of course, Ukraine, but with a few exceptions, there is little attempt to explain the context in which Russia is acting. The West has decided, since it won the Cold War, that Moscow should be given no quarter except on its terms.
Indeed, in view of the flood of condemnations, the conventional wisdom of yesterday, that given the ethnic, religious and linguistic affinities between Russia and Ukraine, the only basis of peaceful coexistence of the two nations was Ukrainian neutrality, sounds quaint today. The West, in particular the European Union, is telling Russia that it has decided to take Ukraine into its fold and that is it.
Immediately after the break up of the Soviet Union and the West unfurling the victory flag, the successor state of Russia was supine and President Boris Yeltsin, in his sober moments, was eating out of then US President Bill Clinton’s hands. The transition was chaotic and many ex-Communist apparatchiks became billionaires and Washington moved pieces in Russia as if it were a chessboard.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) came to an understanding with Russia, which did not take long to unravel. The Baltic states were brought into Nato, as was former Communist Poland. Others, such as Georgia and Ukraine, were projected as future members. The confusion, that was the rule rather than the exception, in Russia had finally given way to the phenomenon of Mr Putin, who, thanks to high oil prices, brought prosperity to the rising middle class. His methods were authoritarian as half-hearted attempts at democracy failed. He set about reordering domestic resources and weaponry to guard the country’s vital national interests.
Georgia was an irritant in its ostentatious overtures to the West. The result was a Russian military intervention resulting in the carving out of two areas which remain as “statelets”. In another case, arising out of the muddled history of the pre- and post-World War II events, Transnistria was separated from Moldova and remains a frozen dispute.
Ukraine is in a class by itself because it is viewed as the fount of Russian Orthodox faith, is peopled by a large number of ethnic Russians and is classed as “New Russia”. As the independent nation of Ukraine, it was split between a western portion looking to the West and an eastern, predominantly Russian-speaking part which viewed Mother Russia as its spiritual home.
EU leaders got more ambitious in folding the land mass of 45 million people adjoining Russia into the Western fold. One President was dethroned in Kiev, a new ad hoc body took over and the pro-West bloc came to power, with the so-called chocolate king, Petro Poroshenko, becoming the new President. The eastern portion had largely boycotted the election.
Thus began a guerrilla war, with the eastern portion proclaiming its people’s republics, with clandestine support from Russia. Moscow increased its support in men and weaponry when Kiev forces seemed to be winning. This took place against the backdrop of Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula (mostly ethnic Russian) through the device of a referendum. It is the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Ironically, Crimea had at one time been gifted by Nikita Khrushchev to Ukraine, when borders in the Soviet sphere did not matter. But given the inclinations of the leaders in Kiev, President Putin felt he could no longer risk the future of a vital maritime asset.
Russian actions have understandably raised the issue of the sanctity of international borders although the West started the trend after World War II, by forcibly carving out Kosovo from what was Yugoslavia. Moscow has indeed contravened rules. The question to consider is the level of provocations from the West.
There are reasonable grounds to assume that Moscow is right in viewing Ukraine as its vital interest and do everything in its power to thwart attempts at a takeover by hostile forces. The Kiev leadership has made no secret of its hatred of Russia, going to the extent of the new Parliament passing a motion in favour of joining Nato, a red rag to the bull.
Western tendency, especially in the US, is to dismiss Russia as a regional power and rub its nose in the dirt. Russia, on the other hand, views itself as a power of some consequence and will try to do everything to safeguard its interests. It already feels encircled by Nato, with even the Baltic states being a part of the alliance. It is now up to the West to de-escalate the Ukraine crisis by acknowledging Mos-cow’s interests. Imagine the US reaction to a hostile nation or force planting itself in its neighbourhood in Latin America. The only reasonable compromise is to treat Ukraine as neutral between East and West. An example of such wisdom was the neutralisation of Austria leading to its prosperity.
Hurdles to a sane compromise are many. We have not returned to the Cold War in physical terms but have reverted to its mindset. And the Kiev leaders are ready to fight many Cold Wars. Some are looking to Angela Merkel to lead. She undertook marathon talks, along with French President Francois Hollande, to bring about a truce known as Minsk II after the Belarussian capital. The truce has proved shaky and left many loose strings.
Indeed, among the main European powers, Germany has always had a somewhat ambiguous relationship with Russia. At one level, it has been an important trading partner, at another it has connected with the German soul. Although Ms Merkel’s approach has been hardening with the deepening crisis, she is also under pressure from her constituency at home.
The EU — more broadly the West — has to approach the Ukraine crisis in a broader framework to resolve it. It should accept Moscow’s legitimate interests and strive to make Ukraine a neutral state. Anything less will not work.
