The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been brewing since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Once serving as a key part of the Soviet Union with its agricultural industry and warm water ports on the Black Sea, Ukraine has now become a top producer and exporter of grain, and specifically wheat, for many developing countries. For example, approximately half of the wheat consumed in Lebanon is imported from Ukraine while Yemen, Libya, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh import over 20% of their wheat from Ukraine. Historically, a group of people called the Rus moved their capital to Kyiv, Ukraine’s current capital, in the 9th century, which Putin claims is the reason that Ukraine’s true sovereignty lies with Russia.
In 2014, Russia illegally invaded Crimea, a southern territory of Ukraine on the Black Sea as well as the eastern industrial regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. These regions are considered Russian separatist regions backed by Moscow with over 50% of the population claiming Russian as their native language, according to a 2001 census (Most recent census). Other former Soviet republics also have pro-Russian separatist regions that Moscow uses to expand their influence and evade sanctions. The ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine has already killed over 14,000 people and stands to be even bloodier if Putin decides to invade the entirety of Ukraine.
Over the past several months, Russia has mobilized an estimated 100,000 troops along with significant heavy weaponry stationed on the Ukrainian border. In December of 2021, Russia gave a list of demands to the US and claimed that they were necessary to prevent a large-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia requested that NATO’s eastern expansion be stopped, military infrastructure such as bases and missiles be limited to their current state, an end to military assistance for Ukraine, and a ban on missiles in Europe. In the past, Western policymakers have argued that Ukraine is not a NATO member and Russia does not have an official say on the military aid that the West sends to Ukraine. However, the current threat of military action has forced the West to reconsider the situation. Although these demands don’t resemble a complete ultimatum for a full-scale invasion, tensions have grown steadily over the past few weeks as diplomatic meetings have failed to de-escalate the situation. To make matters worse, US officials have also said that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could happen within the next month or two.
Both the US and the UK also have intelligence that Russia is seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine.
With both sides under immense pressure to achieve their goals, but also seeking to avoid the largest conventional war since WWII, America’s response along with that of its NATO allies will be paramount. For Putin, the continued democratization of Ukraine would be both a possible symbol of freedom for Russians from his autocratic rule as well as a symbol of victory for the West. Should Ukraine become more Westernized and possibly join NATO someday, it would be viewed as a major security issue and threat to its power and influence. Meanwhile, the US and Europe have the goal of preventing the escalation of the conflict while also maintaining the strength of NATO and the stability of the region.
The question is, how should the West handle the situation? Germany, France, and Britain, Europe’s three biggest powers, are currently divided on how to proceed, leaving other countries on the various sides and the US with uncertainty on how to act. Just like the US, these European nations are reeling from domestic challenges with British leadership under fire for violation of lockdown protocols, France in an election year, and Germany struggling to gain stability after Merkel’s retirement. As it stands, Britain believes that supporting Ukraine with military supplies and weaponry is the best solution while Germany is against arming Ukraine in accordance with their policy from the aftermath of WWII. France on the other hand wishes to establish a security framework led by European Union and separate from NATO and the US. Moreover, Europe’s dependence on Russia’s oil and gas for 40% of its energy needs undermines their interest in preventing Russian expansion.
For Biden and the US, allowing Putin to take advantage of the chaotic circumstances and potentially start a large-scale war would be viewed as a major failure both internationally and domestically. If Russia were to get its way, it could lead the way for further expansion of autocracies as a whole from further European expansion or Chinese expansion into somewhere like Taiwan. A war would also be devastating to the world’s economy as Russia is a top producer of oil and gas. Just last week, Biden admitted that the West was not united on a solution. Despite the possible imminent invasion, Biden is still committed to de-escalating the conflict by threatening to impose economic sanctions and seemingly playing mind games with Putin.
While there is no certainty as to how the situation will play out, it is clear that something has to budge or an escalation to full-scale war is very possible.
Questions:
How does the current situation compare to the past precedent of the Cold War?
To what extent should the US become involved should the conflict escalate to war?
What other implications might an invasion create both domestically and internationally?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/21/ukraine-russia-explain-maps/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/22/russia-ukraine-war-grain-exports-africa-asia/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2021-12-28/what-putin-really-wants-ukraine
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/briefing/russia-ukraine-putin-biden.html
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/06/understanding-russia-ukraine-crisis/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/europe/bulgaria-romania-russia-intl/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60072502
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/joe-biden-vladimir-putin-us-russia-ukraine/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/world/europe/ukraine-biden-eu.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions-explainer-cmd-intl/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/23/europe-divided-ukraine/
3 comments:
The cold war had many moments that threatened a full-out war between the US and the soviet union. This however seems to be the most intense but is similar to the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets were close to the US, right off the coast of Florida but the US has missiles close to the soviets, there's a huge tension they both think they need to be prepared for an invasion so they pull these types of moves, but now there is an active threat. Ukraine has many countries to back it up like the US and other European countries. The US as an ally to Ukraine I think does have a right to be involved because Russia is another world power and Ukraine wouldnt stand a chance aganist a power house like russia and they need back up to even stand a chance to avoid russian take over and a pro russian leader taking over their country. An invasion is going to cause alot of problems, Russia is going to make more enemies and a possible war with the United States, as well as ukraine and their imports could stop all together, many countries are going to depend on their wheat exports.
The current state of the Russian Ukraine conflict is immensely complex. To begin, obviously there is the fact that an all out war would be detrimental to much of Europe which is very reliant on Russian energy. The US is engaging with talks with Qatar next week which could be an avenue to lighten the gas and energy blow to Europe, however, this is obviously not a replacement. Many countries in Europe are already facing immense inflation on gas, to the point where gas prices are about the highest they have ever been. Furthermore, some pipelines that supply energy to western Europe from Russia actually pass through Ukraine, and Ukraine's economy also benefits from such. There was another pipeline Russia has worked on, called Nord Stream 2, which goes straight to Germany, but the US said that it will not continue developing if Russia fully invades Ukraine. Beyond this, even though, if Ukraine is annexed into Russia other European countries will be affected closer than the US, local politics are causing hesitancy to act.
There are also many other ways for the US to fight against Russia without physically deploying troops. A "nuclear option" that is being talked about is to cut Russia off of SWIFT. SWIFT is a system that, while very complicated, essentially boils down to being the communication system used by banks. So this means sending money between different banks ex: Wells Fargo to Deutsche Bank. It is the only of its caliber and is used by pretty much all banks around the world. This would be absolutely devastating to businesses inside Russia that do foreign work (which is usually wealthier people) and would likely make Putin listen. While Russia and China have developed their own SWIFT systems, the Russian one is named SPFS, under different names, they are not even close to as effective as SWIFT is. While SWIFT follows Belgian and European laws, the US may be able to get SWIFT to exclude Russia by threatening to impose sanctions on them. This is what was done to Iran 8 years ago. While Iran's economy was hurt, it would not be on the same scale that Russia would be impacted. Russia's economy is quite integrated with the rest of Russia and this would be pretty detrimental to its already not so strong economy. If this were to be deployed it would also, once again, heavily impact the rest of Europe especially in regards to energy. Another option is to levy sanctions. The US doesn't really place sanctions on heads of state, but sanctions against Putin and other top government officials are a fairly logical option. Overall this situation is very critical and complex. There are many years of history that are the pretext to this situation and there are many countries in Nato that need to collaborate on how to act next. There is news coming out hourly on the situation, and while I don't think this will turn into WW3, this is a very dire conflict that will have a huge affect on Eastern European politics.
The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is frightening due to the expansionist regime of revanchist Russia. Without effective deterrence, Putin will no doubt invade neighboring lands, seen notably with Crimea. Throughout history, there’s been countless examples of Russian aggression in Europe. In 2014, Russia toppled the Ukrainian government and ran former president Viktor Yanukovych out of the country. After gradually losing influence in Ukraine, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea the month after.
And now, Russia has killed over 14,000 people in Ukraine and is building up their military again. The country has lined up their forces near the border with Ukraine and have plans for military operations involving nearly 175,000 troops.
This spells trouble for both Ukraine as well as other countries within the European Union. NATO unity and the strength of the EU is key to check back against Russian revanchism, however, a collapse of NATO — or more likely, lack of action from NATO — is inevitable. When the United States pulled out of Afghanistan, European countries had no other option but to pull out of the war-torn country as well despite their concerns to stop the Taliban’s influence. Neither NATO nor the U.S. provide enough of a deterrent to prevent Russia from invading, especially because the U.S. is taking unilateral action more and more without corresponding with other countries. Further, U.S. global leadership is unraveling and their decline is permanent as they continue to lose more soft power.
Thus, there have been movements for creating a new army by countries across the EU such as Poland, the Baltic Nations, France, and Germany. The EU’s geopolitical placement, ability to collaborate with countries everywhere, and unique ability to unite countries makes its hegemony politically unique. Between Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron, they’ve established the Aachen Treaty of 2019 to build a common military culture.
That provides the precedent for the highly-discussed and controversial joint EU army. However, as Russia decides to project more power into the region, a joint EU army will be able to act as a deterrent and there wouldn't be an opening for Russia to invade. There are already countries in the EU who want to expand their defense commitments and support this joint military such as Latvia and Baltic countries. More notably, eastern EU countries such as Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania favor the plan as they are extremely close to Russia and fear that any miscalculation from any parties involved would cause violence within their nation as well.
Post a Comment