GEOPOLITICS

DECODING THE UKRAINE CRISIS

The Ukraine-Russian faceoff is the closest that the NATO forces have come to a shooting war with Russia after the collapse of the USSR.

Geopolitical Strategist Mr. Brunello Rosa, was interviewed by Manasa S. Murthy of the Synergia Foundation.

Undeterred by Western sanctions, Russia has launched a full-scale ‘military operation’ in Ukraine. The countries on NATO’s eastern fl ank, especially the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, are on high alert, with the U.S. deploying its fi rst batch of military troops and equipment there.

CASUS BELLI FOR WAR

Since Ukraine allied itself with the western powers with its publicly expressed desire to join both EU and NATO, its relations with Russia, never on the best of terms, speedily went south. “Moscow has been trying to assert itself in an old-fashioned geopolitical stance. It needs to ensure that there is enough geopolitical depth between itself and Central Europe. In other words, Russia wants to have a sort of ‘cushion’ in case of a NATO invasion, so that the Motherland is always protected” explains Mr. Brunello Rosa, CEO and Head of Research, Rosa and Roubini Associates, London.

A glimpse of the map of Eastern Europe will make it amply clear. As Russia shares no border with any NATO country. An economically weak but militarily still formidable country, Russia deems this buff er critical to its security. Russia’s relations with these so-called buff er states fl uctuate - from close relations with the beleaguered Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko of Belarus to openly hostile with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

However, considering Russia-Belarus relations in the past, Mr. Rosa opines that there is no direct relation between the presence of troops in Belarus and what is happening in Ukraine. There have been a number of bilateral tensions between Russia and Belarus over the past few months. “Russia is a country which will leverage its infl uence with one country to assert itself over another - remember the war with Georgia a few years ago and, more recently, the country’s intervention in the Kazakh crisis. This is its way of pressuring NATO and other European countries to abandon their idea of inducting Ukraine into their folds,” says Mr. Rosa.

CRIMEA 2.0?

Haunted by the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, which caught the West by surprise, NATO this time over is more circumspect over Ukraine. Given its history and geography, Ukraine is vulnerable to both an actual military invasion by a powerful Russian armoured juggernaut as also to hybrid warfare, including cyber-attacks, something at which Moscow has gained considerable expertise. In addition, there

Russia is a country which will leverage its infl uence with one country to assert itself over another - remember the war with Georgia a few years ago and, more recently, the country’s intervention in the Kazakh crisis. This is its way of pressuring NATO and other European countries to abandon their idea of inducting Ukraine into their folds.

are internal differences within Ukraine, which can be easily exploited.

Russia is aware that a blatant military invasion will attract immediate retribution from the West, both in terms of severe sanctions and even military intervention in some form as a worst-case scenario. On the other hand, a grey zone/hybrid/ cyber-attack may not be so easy to respond for NATO.

WESTERN RESPONSE

While the U.S. and UK have been unequivocal about their determination to impose ‘crushing sanctions’, there are many aspects that make such a move fraught with dangers for NATO unity.

For one, there is the issue of energy for European powerhouses like Germany. At its heart is the 1230 km undersea pipeline running from Vyborg in Russia to Greifswald in Germany. Germany has already invested billions in the project and is keen to put it online to accelerate its post-COVID economic recovery. “Clearly, the energy shortage puts Russia in a much better position and Europe in a vulnerable place,” says Mr. Rosa. Nonetheless, Europe has shown in the past that in certain exceptional cases, no economic interests can prevail over the international order. More provocations or attacks of limited nature can probably lead to immediate compromise by the West. Minor deviations may be excused, which can prompt Mr Putin to test the waters and gauge the threshold of the West, but major violations will not be tolerated. This is similar to what the Chinese are doing in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

With respect to energy, the Russians could potentially lose big contracts and clients, thereby hurting their own economic interests. In the past, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel had warned President Putin that clear violations would result in sanctions. Her successor, while initially denying weapons to Ukraine has done a dramatic turnaround. Germany has for the first time decided to supply weapons to a combatant and will significantly increase its defence budget. This is bound to change the entire dimension of the security structure in Europe, a move that will be highlighly welcomed by the U.S. who has always been critical of Europe’s conservative and pacifist defence policy.

Mr. Rosa calls President Putin a realist, “a man not driven by a particular ideology, only taking action when he is assured of success. Therefore, if Putin believes he has good incentives in invading Ukraine, he shall choose to do so. The ultimate decision belongs to him”. Other than economic sanctions, a military response by NATO would be extremely challenging. Article 5 of NATO clearly states that member nations can extend help only when one of them is attacked. Ukraine, not being a NATO member, complicates the situation. This brings to the fore the need to redefine the UN Security Council to make it more effective and better representative of the larger global community. Even if the current Permanent Five are unlikely to give the veto power to newly inducted members, an expanded UNSC would be more effective in discussing global flashpoints where the P5 have vested interests.

GHOSTS OF NUCLEAR PAST?

With Russia initiating a full-scale ‘military operation’ against Ukraine, a top Ukrainian politician has regretfully recalled how his country disarmed its nuclear weapons in the 1990s. It is worth remembering that Kyiv had done so, in exchange for security guarantees about its territorial integrity from Moscow, London and Washington.

Termed as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the accord had assured that in the event of any aggression, the signatories would seek immediate action from the United Nations Security Council to aid Ukraine. In return, Kyiv had to surrender about one-third of the nuclear arsenal left on its soil, in the aftermath of the Soviet Union collapse. In light of recent events, many speculate if this was a historic mistake on the part of Kyiv.

There are others, however, who argue that the decision to denuclearise was the right one, given the regional instability surrounding the newly independent post-Soviet states in 1991.

UKRAINE-RUSSIA CRISIS

Timeline since Crimea annexation

Some key milestones since Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

2014

February - Anti-government protests peak in Ukraine and spark a counter-revolution in the Donbas region. February/March - Russia invades and annexes Crimea. September - The Minsk Agreement is signed in Belarus calling for a ceasefire. The deal collapses within days of signing.

2015 2017

2020

2021

February - A new Minsk agreement is signed with a new OSCE-monitored ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from both sides.

June - Ukranian Parliament adopts legislation to restate its intention to join NATO.

September - Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approves a security strategy laying foundations for a partnership with NATO.

March - Russian troops begin amassing at the Ukraine border. July - Vladimir Putin publishes an article “On the historical unity or Russians and Ukrainians”, where the delineates the historical ties between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

December - An estimated 100,000 Russian troops are concentrated along the Ukraine border.

2022

January - Russia, NATO and the OSCE hold diplomatic talks. The US and Russia meet in Geneva to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine. NATO puts troops and standby.