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 :  Will Digital Currency Replace Traditional Paper Currency in Pakistan? Implications and Possibilities

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 :  Global Socio-Economic Impact of Covid-19

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

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 :  Quick Actions Reduced Twin Deficits, Restored Business Confidence: Finance Division

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

Analysis

Russia has proved resilient to Western sanctions

Published

on

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the West responded with a barrage of sanctions unprecedented in scope and severity. The goal was to cripple the Russian economy and force President Vladimir Putin to withdraw his troops.

However, more than a year later, the Russian economy has proved to be more resilient than expected. The ruble has recovered from its initial plunge, GDP has fallen by less than initially feared, and the government has been able to continue funding the war in Ukraine.

There are a number of factors that have contributed to Russia’s resilience to sanctions. First, the Russian government has taken a number of steps to mitigate the impact of sanctions, such as imposing capital controls and increasing government spending. Second, Russia has benefited from high energy prices, which have helped to offset the loss of revenue from other exports. Third, Russia has been able to redirect trade to other countries, such as China and India.

However, it is important to note that the Russian economy is still under significant pressure. Inflation is high, real incomes are falling, and there is a risk of a financial crisis. In the long term, sanctions are likely to have a significant negative impact on the Russian economy.

I.How Russia has mitigated the impact of sanctions

The Russian government has taken a number of steps to mitigate the impact of sanctions, including:

  • Imposing capital controls: This has prevented Russians from withdrawing their money from banks and moving it abroad.
  • Increasing government spending: The government has increased spending on social programs and infrastructure in order to support the economy and maintain public morale.
  • Raising taxes: The government has raised taxes on businesses and individuals in order to generate additional revenue.
  • Providing subsidies to businesses: The government has provided subsidies to businesses that are struggling to cope with sanctions.
  • Redirecting trade to other countries: The government has been working to redirect trade to other countries, such as China and India.
ALSO READ :  Quick Actions Reduced Twin Deficits, Restored Business Confidence: Finance Division

II.How Russia has benefited from high energy prices

Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. Energy prices have risen sharply since the start of the war in Ukraine, due to a combination of factors, including increased demand and disruptions to supply. This has boosted Russia’s export revenue and helped to offset the loss of revenue from other exports.

III.How Russia has redirected trade to other countries

Russia has been working to redirect trade to other countries, such as China and India. China has been particularly important, as it has continued to buy Russian oil and gas despite Western sanctions. India has also increased its imports of Russian oil.

IV.The impact of sanctions on the Russian economy

The Russian economy is still under significant pressure from sanctions. Inflation is high, real incomes are falling, and there is a risk of a financial crisis.

Inflation in Russia reached 17.1% in July 2023, up from 15.9% in June. This is the highest level of inflation since 2001.

Real incomes in Russia have been falling for several months. In the first quarter of 2023, real incomes fell by 4.3% compared to the same period in 2022. This is the largest decline in real incomes since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

There is also a risk of a financial crisis in Russia. The Russian banking system is under significant strain, and there is a risk that some banks could fail. This could lead to a decline in consumer confidence and a recession.

V.The long-term impact of sanctions on the Russian economy

ALSO READ :  5 Reasons Why Modi Tarnished the Secular Face of India with Diplomatic Failures Globally

In the long term, sanctions are likely to have a significant negative impact on the Russian economy. Sanctions are likely to slow down economic growth and reduce investment. They will also make it difficult for Russian companies to compete in global markets. Sanctions are also likely to lead to a decline in the standard of living in Russia. Real incomes are likely to fall further, and poverty is likely to increase.

Conclusion

It is evident that the sanctions imposed by Western countries are posing a significant economic threat to Russia, despite the country’s resilience. The effects of these sanctions are not limited to the government but are felt by the general public, as they struggle with a stagnant job market and increasing prices. Although Russia has managed to withstand the impact of these sanctions so far, it is apparent that the longer they persist, the greater damage they will cause to the country’s economic future. It remains uncertain whether Russia will find a way to alleviate the impact of these sanctions and pave a new path forward.

Continue Reading

Analysis

United Nations in Disarray: Is Its Relevance Fading?

Published

on

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) was founded in the aftermath of World War II with a noble vision: to promote international cooperation, maintain peace and security, and address global challenges collectively. Over the decades, it has played a crucial role in preventing conflicts, providing humanitarian aid, and fostering development worldwide. However, as the world has evolved, so too have the challenges facing the UN. In this blog post, we will explore the question of whether the UN has lost its relevance in the contemporary world.

Historical Significance of the United Nations

To understand the UN’s current relevance, we must first acknowledge its historical significance. The UN was established in 1945 with the signing of the United Nations Charter, which sought to prevent another world war by promoting diplomacy and international cooperation. It replaced the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent World War II.

One of the UN’s primary functions is to maintain international peace and security. It has played a pivotal role in mediating conflicts, deploying peacekeeping missions, and preventing the outbreak of wars between nations. Notable examples include the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the peacekeeping efforts in Cyprus, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

The UN also prioritizes human rights, development, and humanitarian assistance. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, set the foundation for international human rights standards. UN agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Programme (WFP) have made significant contributions to alleviating global poverty and suffering.

A.Challenges to UN Relevance

While the UN has achieved many milestones, it faces several challenges that have raised questions about its relevance in the modern world.

ALSO READ :  Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi Embarks on a 4-Day Russia Visit for Crucial Security Talks

1.Ineffectiveness in Conflict Resolution:

One of the primary functions of the UN is to prevent and resolve conflicts. However, its track record in this regard has been mixed. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and South Sudan have persisted for years despite UN involvement. The Security Council’s veto power, which gives the five permanent members (the P5) – the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom – disproportionate influence, has hindered effective decision-making.

2.Rising Nationalism and Sovereignty:

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of nationalism and a push for greater sovereignty among nations. Some argue that the UN’s influence has waned as more countries prioritize their own interests over international cooperation. The rise of populist leaders in various countries has challenged the multilateral approach that the UN embodies.

3.Bureaucracy and Inefficiency:

Critics point to the UN’s bureaucratic structure as a hindrance to its effectiveness. Complex decision-making processes, budgetary constraints, and inefficiencies within the organization have led to slow responses to global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.Security Council Reform:

The structure of the UN Security Council, with its veto-wielding P5 members, has long been a subject of controversy. Many argue that this structure does not reflect the current geopolitical landscape and that it perpetuates power imbalances. Calls for Security Council reform to include more countries as permanent members have yet to see substantial progress.

5.Funding and Resource Constraints:

The UN relies on member states for funding, which can lead to financial instability and dependence on a few major contributors. Additionally, resource constraints often limit the UN’s ability to respond adequately to humanitarian crises and development needs.

B.Efforts to Address Challenges

Despite these challenges, the UN has not been passive in adapting to the changing global landscape.

1.Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

The adoption of the SDGs in 2015 marked a significant shift in the UN’s approach to development. These 17 goals aim to address global issues such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and education by 2030. The SDGs emphasize a holistic and inclusive approach to development, encouraging member states to work together to achieve common objectives.

ALSO READ :  Israel-Palestine Conflict Escalates Amidst Gaza Power Crisis

2.Climate Change and Environmental Issues:

The UN has been at the forefront of global efforts to combat climate change. The Paris Agreement, reached in 2015, is a testament to international cooperation on this critical issue. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides scientific assessments that inform global climate policies.

3.Humanitarian Assistance:

UN agencies like the WFP and UNHCR continue to provide vital assistance to refugees and those affected by conflicts and disasters worldwide. Their work demonstrates the UN’s continued relevance in addressing humanitarian crises.

4.Peacekeeping and Mediation:

Despite challenges, the UN remains engaged in peacekeeping efforts in various regions. While it may not always achieve immediate success, the presence of UN peacekeepers can help stabilize situations and lay the groundwork for lasting peace.

5.Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution:

The UN continues to serve as a platform for diplomatic negotiations and conflict resolution. Even when solutions are elusive, the dialogue facilitated by the UN remains essential in preventing further escalation.

Conclusion

The question of whether the United Nations has lost its relevance is complex and multifaceted. While it faces numerous challenges, including inefficiency, conflicts, and calls for reform, the UN continues to play a vital role in addressing global issues. Its work in sustainable development, climate change, and humanitarian assistance underscores its importance.

To remain relevant and effective in the 21st century, the UN must adapt to the evolving global landscape. This includes addressing issues such as Security Council reform, streamlining its bureaucracy, and increasing transparency and accountability. Furthermore, member states must reaffirm their commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation.

In an interconnected world facing unprecedented challenges, the United Nations remains a symbol of hope for a more peaceful and prosperous future. Its relevance depends on the collective will of the international community to work together in pursuit of common goals. The UN’s mission, as outlined in its Charter, remains as important today as it was at its inception: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, promote human rights, and foster social progress.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019-2023 ,The Monitor . All Rights Reserved .