Connect with us

Ukraine

Ukraine will either be Permanently Neutral or Permanently Divided

Published

on

Yes, yes, and yes. Yes to Hall Gardner’s analysis of the necessity for a neutral solution to Ukraine. Yes to that of Klaus Larres, and yes to that of the many others, including Henry KissingerSteve WaltAnatol LievenKatrina vanden Heuvel, and the many European colleagues like Heinz Gärtner and others in the neutrality studies network who have been calling for a neutral status for Ukraine for years.

And no, it is not cynicism to call again for a neutral solution to what has morphed from a crisis into a war. This war could have been avoided had leaders in the West and in Kyiv not misinterpreted Russia’s demands for security guarantees, a common security architecture, and the stop of NATO expansion as hubris. It doesn’t matter whether NATO is “really” a threat to Russia or not, the only thing that matters is what Russian leaders believe it is. And we are seeing now that they are willing to even go to war to make it absolutely impossible for Ukraine to ever dream of NATO membership again.   

Don’t get me wrong. Vladimir Putin is committing a crime. The invasion of Ukraine is a blatant infringement of international law, the norms of the Post-WWII international order, it is (probably) unprovoked, and simply unjustifiable. I would never justify a war of aggression, which this is. The annexation of Crimea was also a crime, as it broke the Budapest Memorandum. What I’m writing here is not an excuse of Mr. Putin’s actions. It is simply an explanation why Russia goes to war with a sister nation. Russia attacking Ukraine makes as much sense as Sweden attacking Norway, or the US attacking Canada. It is a tragedy and would only happen if something was seriously out of whack.

Offering Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership back in 2008 was a tremendous mistake. It hardened the political fronts inside the countries, leading Georgia to believe that NATO would help bringing back its breakaway regions, creating the ground for the 2008 Russo-Georgian war. We are seeing the replay of that on a much grander scale now in Ukraine. The West’s rhetorical support for the Maidan uprising was another mistake. It immediately led to the annexation of Crimea, the most strategic place in the Black Sea, with a Russian naval base which it simply could not risk ever becoming a NATO outpost.

The West failing for 7 years to pressure Ukraine to implement the Minsk II agreements and start a federalization process was the third mistake. Putin did not recognize the two Ukrainian breakaway regions until a few weeks ago because Minsk II would have been a way forward for Russia to receive what it wanted without a war and international backlash. But this chance again was squandered. Western leaders only started remembering Minsk II in February this year, when Russia threw it in the garbage bin after demanding so many years it be implemented.

ALSO READ :  Nato vs. Russia: who would win a war?

Russia behaves utterly rationally, like a criminal, but like a rational criminal. And let me be clear, Russia is not even doing something new here. The West has been behaving criminally for years. It has given Moscow all it needs to do what it is doing now. Fabricated pretext to illegally invade a country with false claims—like “Weapons of Mass Destruction”—check. Change of territorial status without consent from the internationally recognized sovereign nation it is part of—like Kosovo—check. Military action without UN mandate—like the Iraq War—check. Unilateral recognition of border changes that came about through war—like US recognition of the Golan Heights—check. Russia is ruthless in using the West’s playbook for its own purposes. It’s just less skilled at controlling the narrative and gathering international support.

Even the pretext of intervening for “humanitarian purposes” is there. The very argument with which NATO implemented a UN-mandated No-fly zone over Libya but then went on to bombard strategic military positions leading to the downfall of the Gadhafi regime. It will take years to sort out in this instance who fired the first shots, how many Donbas citizens were killed by Ukrainian forces, how many by Russian forces, who did the shelling, and if there is anything true about Russian claims of mass atrocities in the Donbas. The tragedy is that this is another nail in the coffin of the OSCE standards and the norms that we hoped would secure peace on the Eurasian continent.

Ukrainian neutrality with a federal structure would have been a solution that could have defused the whole situation many years ago. Even just months ago. Putin’s draft treaties of December 17 last year were basically a demand for Ukrainian neutrality. The treaties just did not name the policy, probably to avoid giving the west a pre-text to refuse the neutralization of Ukraine. Well, now Russia attacked, and it is putting its cards on the table. Putin suggested Ukraine return to the neutrality article it had in its constitution before 2014. He said so again in a televised speech and there were also reports about his offer to discuss with the Ukrainian leadership a neutralization and demilitarization. At some point, we even heard from Ukraine that it might be prepared to accept a neutralized status.

Unfortunately, the talks have not yielded a ceasefire yet, but it is clear that the neutrality of Ukraine remains a key-element in Russia’s negotiation strategy. Sergei Naryshkin, Moscow’s spy-chief, just said so again on Thursday, March 3, and Mr. Putin did so on March 5. He also reiterated that he perceives the potential of a Ukraine in NATO as a deadly threat to Crimea, and in extension, to Russia. It is nonsense that Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. That is just western scaremongering. Nothing in the Russian negotiation tactic or its speech acts would give any evidence of that. Just think for a moment: no soviet leader ever accepted the neutralist tendencies in their sphere of influence. Just ask the Hungarians what happened to them when they tried to become neutral in 1956. Russia is playing a completely different game. It simply wants a non-hostile buffer zone around its heartland.

ALSO READ :  Google Pixel 8 Pro: Unveiling the Enhanced Pixel Experience with the New Pixel Launcher Update in Response to Digital Markets Act

Neutrality works. We know Russia wants it, and we know it accepts it. Just look east. Mongolia declared its neutrality in 2015. Russia and China both accepted that. Why? Because it makes sense. Neutrals are buffer states that put physical space between real adversaries and thereby deescalate the security dilemma. We are all students of international relations and know the security dilemma. Propping up one party with weapons for “defense” will of course lead to insecurities in the other party and to their propping up their fire power in turn. Neutral states that are armed but no serious threat are perfect buffers and that’s exactly what Putin seems to want. Buffers between Russia’s heartland and NATO.

Russia also accepts the neutrality of Moldova and accepts that of Turkmenistan. Putin wants a neutral Ukraine, and that would make sense for all parties involved. And by now, there is also no more alternative. It’s either going to be permanent neutrality or permanent division or, in the worst case, even permanent occupation for Ukraine. A federal, demilitarized, and neutral Ukraine is the only way forward into peace with some chances for Ukraine to receive the Donbas back if a Belgium-style federalization with the individual regions receiving strong powers also over foreign policy matters was on the table.

And I will close with this: permanent neutrality is not even a bad solution. It’s a very European solution for a very European problem; constant geopolitical mutual threats. Switzerland was neutralized in 1815 to keep Austria and France apart, Belgium and Luxemburg put space between France and Germany, and Austria, in 1955, was neutralized to regain its independence without becoming a threat in NATO to the USSR. And it worked. It can work again for Ukraine because it is so obviously exactly the compromise that Russia wants if just the West and Ukraine can accept it, too. If Ukraine declares its permanent neutrality and its security partners sign off on that, peace will return.

Via MD

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

NATO

Unpacking NATO’s Troop Deployments in Ukraine: Navigating the Path to Peace Amidst Nuclear Risks

Published

on

Introduction

In recent times, the geopolitical landscape has been fraught with tensions, particularly surrounding NATO’s plans for troop deployments in Ukraine. The implications of such actions have sparked concerns about the potential for nuclear war. This article delves into the intricacies of NATO’s troop deployments in Ukraine and analyzes the risks associated with these manoeuvres.

Understanding NATO’s Troop Deployments in Ukraine:
NATO’s decision to deploy troops in Ukraine stems from a desire to bolster security in the region amidst escalating tensions with Russia. The alliance aims to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and deter further Russian aggression. However, these deployments have raised alarm bells due to the proximity to Russia’s borders and the potential for miscalculations that could lead to a dangerous escalation.

Assessing the Nuclear Threat:
The spectre of nuclear war looms large over any conflict involving major powers like NATO and Russia. The presence of troops in Ukraine increases the risk of inadvertent clashes that could spiral out of control, potentially leading to a catastrophic nuclear exchange. Understanding the dynamics of nuclear deterrence and the challenges it poses in a volatile situation is crucial in assessing the gravity of the situation.

Historical Context and Lessons Learned:
Drawing lessons from past conflicts and crises can provide valuable insights into how to navigate the current situation. Historical examples such as the Cuban Missile Crisis highlight the dangers of brinkmanship and the importance of clear communication channels to prevent misunderstandings that could trigger a nuclear catastrophe.

Diplomatic Efforts and De-escalation Strategies:
Amidst heightened tensions, diplomatic efforts play a crucial role in preventing conflicts from escalating into full-blown wars. Engaging in dialogue, promoting transparency, and seeking common ground are essential components of de-escalation strategies that can help defuse tensions and reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation.

ALSO READ :  12 Reasons How NATO Membership Will Empower Ukraine

The Role of International Organizations and Multilateral Cooperation:
International organizations like the United Nations play a pivotal role in mediating conflicts and promoting peaceful resolutions. Multilateral cooperation is essential in addressing complex security challenges and fostering stability in regions facing geopolitical tensions. Leveraging diplomatic channels through international platforms can help mitigate risks and prevent conflicts from spiralling out of control.

Conclusion:
As NATO’s troop deployments in Ukraine continue to provoke concerns about the specter of nuclear war, it is imperative for all parties involved to exercise restraint, prioritize dialogue over confrontation, and work towards peaceful resolutions. By understanding the risks involved, learning from history, and engaging in diplomatic efforts, we can navigate these turbulent times with caution and foresight.

Continue Reading

European Union

A Pyrrhic Victory for Ukraine: Hungary’s Veto Casts a Shadow Over EU Membership Dream

Published

on

In a night of stark contrasts, the European Union offered Ukraine a glimmer of hope by opening the door to membership, only to have Hungary slam it shut on crucial financial aid. While President Zelensky hailed the accession talks as a “victory,” the bitter sting of Hungary’s veto on a €50 billion aid package left a bitter aftertaste. This geopolitical chess game, unfolding amidst the backdrop of a brutal war, raises critical questions about solidarity, unity, and the true meaning of European values.

Hungary’s decision, orchestrated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, stands as a stark reminder that the path to EU membership is fraught with political hurdles. Orbán, a long-time critic of Ukraine’s President Zelensky and a close ally of Russian President Putin cited concerns about Ukraine’s readiness and the potential burden on Hungary as reasons for his veto. However, many see this move as politically motivated, a calculated leveraging of EU funds frozen over rule-of-law concerns.

This cynical ploy throws a wrench into the narrative of unwavering European support for Ukraine. The war-torn nation, battling for its very existence against Russian aggression, desperately needs this financial lifeline. The €50 billion package, earmarked for reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and military assistance, is not a luxury, but a lifeline. Every euro withheld is a victory for Putin, prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Hungary’s isolation in this decision is palpable. All 26 other member states backed the aid package, highlighting the widening chasm between Orbán’s nationalist populism and the EU’s values of unity and solidarity. The European Council President, Charles Michel, called Orbán’s veto “unjustifiable,” and the chorus of condemnation from other member states is growing.

ALSO READ :  Unveiling the Future: Cognizant's Advanced AI Lab in San Francisco

Beyond the immediate financial impact, Hungary’s veto casts a shadow over the future of EU enlargement. The prospect of Ukraine’s accession, once seen as a symbol of European unity against Russian aggression, is now tainted by political manoeuvring and self-interest. This raises concerns about the EU’s credibility as a beacon of hope and a guarantor of security for aspiring members.

However, amidst the disappointment, there are glimmers of hope. The opening of accession talks for Ukraine is a significant step forward, a tangible recognition of the country’s democratic aspirations and its unwavering commitment to European values. It is a clear message to Putin that Ukraine has a future within the European fold, a future that cannot be extinguished by bombs or vetoes.

Moving forward, the EU must find a way to overcome this internal friction. Hungary’s veto cannot be allowed to derail the Ukrainian people’s legitimate pursuit of membership. Potential solutions could include amending the voting procedure for future aid packages, exploring alternative funding mechanisms, or even imposing sanctions on Hungary for obstructionism.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with Orbán. He must choose whether to stand on the side of history, supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom and democracy, or remain tethered to his own narrow political agenda. The eyes of Europe, and indeed the world, are watching.

The story of Hungary’s veto is not just about euros and political gamesmanship. It is a story about the values that define Europe – solidarity, unity, and the courage to stand up for what is right in the face of adversity. While the sting of the veto is immediate, the long-term consequences depend on how the EU and its member states respond. Will they allow Orbán’s cynicism to dim the light of European hope for Ukraine? Or will they rise to the challenge, reaffirming the values that bind them together and forging a path towards a future where all of Europe stands united against tyranny and oppression?

ALSO READ :  74 Years of NATO's Establishment: The Achievements, Failures, and Challenges

This is not just a question for politicians and diplomats; it is a question for every European citizen. We must demand that our leaders stand on the right side of history, that they reject the cynicism and self-interest that fueled Hungary’s veto, and that they work tirelessly to ensure that Ukraine’s dream of European membership does not become another casualty of this tragic war.

The fight for Ukraine’s future is far from over. The opening of accession talks is a victory, but the battle for financial aid, for unity, and the very soul of Europe continues. We must stand with Ukraine, not just in words, but in deeds, ensuring that the light of hope kindled by the EU’s embrace does not flicker out, but burns brightly, guiding Ukraine towards a future it so rightfully deserves.

Continue Reading

Analysis

🎯Putin’s Empire: Will It Collapse? The Shocking Truth Revealed!

Published

on

President Joe Biden and Russian

The current state of world affairs is marked by uncertainty, particularly as Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, seeks to recapture its former strength and expand its influence. This piece examines the historical examples of empires striving to regain lost territories and the possible repercussions of Putin’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. We will take a critical and analytical approach to explore the Russian invasion, Putin’s aspirations for a new empire, the fall of Ukraine, and the role of the United States in this global power struggle.

The Russian Invasion: A Bold Move or a Desperate Act?

A Glimpse into Putin’s Ambitions

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in recent years has sent shockwaves through the international community. It’s not the first time in history that an empire has sought to expand its territory through military force, and Putin’s ambitions harken back to a bygone era when empires were the dominant players on the world stage.

Russian Invasion: The Russian invasion of Ukraine is reminiscent of similar imperialistic moves made by emperors of old. Putin, with dreams of a new Russian empire, has aggressively pursued his vision in the face of global opposition.

Putin’s Vision: Vladimir Putin’s ambition to restore Russia to its former imperial glory is evident in his actions. He envisions a new Russian empire that expands beyond its current borders, making Ukraine a central piece in his geopolitical puzzle.

Lessons from History: The Perils of Imperialism

Throughout history, empires that sought to expand often faced significant challenges. The very act of empire-building can be a double-edged sword. As they say, history repeats itself.

Imperial Overstretch: One of the most common pitfalls empires face is the concept of imperial overstretch. The more territory an empire seeks to control, the harder it becomes to maintain and govern. This overreach can lead to a strain on resources, military power, and diplomatic relations.

Resistance and Rebellion: Empires attempting to reclaim lost territories often face strong resistance from the local populations. The resistance can manifest in various forms, including rebellions, insurgencies, and international sanctions.

International Backlash: The international community tends to react strongly to aggressive imperialistic moves. Economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military intervention from other nations can quickly turn the tide against the aggressor.

ALSO READ :  Is Putin’s gamble on Ukraine rational?

The Collapse of Ukraine: A Pawn in the Geopolitical Game

The Struggles of a Nation Caught in the Crossfire

The collapse of Ukraine is a heartbreaking consequence of the power struggle between Russia and the West. This section explores the history of Ukraine’s struggle for independence and its role in Putin’s grand vision.

Ukraine’s Historical Quest for Independence: Ukraine has a long and tumultuous history, often caught between the influence of larger neighbouring powers. The country’s aspiration for independence and self-determination has been a driving force for its people.

Putin’s Manipulation: Putin’s strategy to incorporate Ukraine into his new Russian empire involved tactics that undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty. The annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine are examples of Putin’s coercive approach.

Humanitarian Crisis: The collapse of Ukraine has also resulted in a significant humanitarian crisis, with countless lives disrupted, and a nation torn apart by conflict.

The Role of the United States: A Global Power Play

The Geostrategic Implications

The United States, as a superpower, plays a pivotal role in this geopolitical struggle. Its stance and actions can significantly impact the outcome of Putin’s ambitions.

US Opposition to Russian Expansion: The United States has been a staunch critic of Russia’s aggressive actions and has taken measures to deter Putin’s expansionist agenda. This includes sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and diplomatic efforts.

Geostrategic Implications: The struggle between Russia and the US over Ukraine has broader implications for global geopolitics. It’s not just about Ukraine; it’s about the balance of power in Europe and beyond.

Potential Escalation: The ongoing tensions and confrontations between Russia and the US raise concerns about a potential escalation of the conflict and its impact on global stability.

Conclusion

The Future of Putin’s Ambitions

In conclusion, history provides a sobering lesson for those who seek to restore empires and expand their territories. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a bold move by Putin, driven by a vision of a new empire. However, as history has shown, the path to empire-building is fraught with challenges and uncertainties.

The collapse of Ukraine is a tragic consequence of this geopolitical power struggle, resulting in a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. The role of the United States in opposing Russian expansion adds another layer of complexity to the situation, with implications far beyond Eastern Europe.

As we watch the events unfold, the world can only hope that a peaceful and diplomatic resolution can be found, avoiding further conflict and suffering. The future of Putin’s ambitions and the stability of the global order hang in the balance.

ALSO READ :  World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2024: Challenges, Themes, and Resolutions for Economic Development in the Age of AI

In the end, the inevitable fall of Putin’s new Russian empire may be a cautionary tale for future leaders and a reminder that history has a way of repeating itself, even in the modern age.

FAQs

What is the Russian invasion mentioned in the article?

The Russian invasion refers to the military action taken by Russia in Ukraine, to expand its territory and influence.

What are Putin’s ambitions for a new Russian empire?

Vladimir Putin envisions a new Russian empire that includes territories beyond Russia’s current borders, with a particular focus on Ukraine as a central piece of this grand vision.

What is imperial overstretch, and how does it relate to empires?

Imperial overstretch is a concept where empires that seek to control extensive territories may find it challenging to maintain and govern those territories effectively. This can lead to resource strain, military difficulties, and diplomatic challenges.

Why is Ukraine considered a pawn in the geopolitical game?

Ukraine is seen as a pawn due to its strategic location and its historical struggle for independence. It has become a focal point in the struggle between Russia and the West, leading to the collapse of the nation.

How has Putin manipulated Ukraine’s sovereignty?

Putin has employed various tactics, such as the annexation of Crimea and involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and further his ambitions.

What is the humanitarian crisis mentioned in the article?

The humanitarian crisis refers to the widespread suffering and disruption of lives in Ukraine as a result of the ongoing conflict and the collapse of the nation.

What measures has the United States taken in opposition to Russian expansion?

The United States has taken several measures, including imposing sanctions, providing military aid to Ukraine, and engaging in diplomatic efforts to counter Russia’s expansionist agenda.

What are the geostrategic implications of the struggle between Russia and the US over Ukraine?

The struggle over Ukraine has broader implications for global geopolitics, affecting the balance of power in Europe and potentially leading to an escalation of the conflict.

What is the global significance of the situation discussed in the article?

The events surrounding Putin’s ambitions and the Ukraine crisis have global significance, as they impact the stability of the global order and the potential for further conflicts.

Can history provide insights into the outcome of Putin’s ambitions?

History can offer valuable insights into the potential challenges and consequences of empire-building and territorial expansion, even in the modern age.

How can a peaceful and diplomatic resolution be achieved in this situation?

Achieving a peaceful and diplomatic resolution requires careful negotiations and international cooperation to de-escalate tensions and address the root causes of the conflict.

What can other leaders learn from the events discussed in the article?

Other leaders can learn from the cautionary tale of Putin’s ambitions and the historical patterns of empire-building, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy and conflict prevention.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2019-2024 ,The Monitor . All Rights Reserved .