Showdown in Ukraine

Ukraine crisis is a geopolitical power play between Russia and the US, building up since the end of the Cold War

If Western governments and their jingoist media are to be believed, Russian President Putin has unleashed an unjust war of aggression against the hapless people of Ukraine causing widespread death and destruction while uprooting millions of people even as the heroic Ukrainian forces put up stiff resistance against the invading Russian forces.

Meanwhile, the Russian narrative has been virtually blocked through effectively censoring their media outlets and comprehensive sanctions have been imposed against Moscow. The reality, of course, is quite different. In fact, the Ukraine crisis is a classic case of a geopolitical power play between Russia and the US which has been building up ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991. This showdown has now finally taken place in Ukraine. Its outcome will have far-reaching implications for the future global geopolitical order.

With his rise to power in 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sought to end the Cold War with the US in order to focus on reforming his dysfunctional communist state. For this he accepted dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and “democratisation” of the Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe. At the time, US President Bush assured Moscow that the NATO alliance would “not expand one inch” towards Soviet borders in view of the latter’s security concerns. But once the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia emerged as the truncated successor state, this policy was reversed by subsequent American leaders despite objections by Russian leaders, who argued that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union there was no justification for NATO itself to exist, let alone for its expansion. But the Russians were too weak at the time to be taken seriously by a US that had emerged as the sole superpower and determined to prevent the emergence of any competitor to American global hegemony — whether Russia or China. Consequently, in Europe, the US pushed for NATO expansion eastwards to “contain” Russia while engaging in the “Pivot to Asia” through strengthening the Quadrilateral alliance with Japan, Australia and India to contain China. This in turn pushed Russia and China into their own strategic embrace against the US. The new geopolitical realignment of forces thus began to take shape.

Overriding Russian objections, American-backed NATO expansion in Europe proceeded incrementally — in 1991, Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic became members; in 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were added; and in 2009, Albania and Croatia joined NATO. But, by 2008, Putin had been in power long enough to ensure Russian resurgence and forcibly resisted the American attempt to bring Georgia into the western orbit. Then, in 2014, when the West engineered regime change in Ukraine, Russia again reacted forcibly, occupying Crimea to retain its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol and to protect the Russian population in Donbass.

For Moscow the status of Ukraine is even more important than the rest of Eastern Europe. Apart from a shared history over several centuries in Kivan-Rus, Eastern Ukraine has a large ethnic Russian population while western Ukraine is largely Ukrainian. Besides, Russia has vital strategic interests in Ukraine such as its Black Sea fleet in Crimea and the Baltic Sea fleet in Kaliningrad. Accordingly, following the 2015 Russian intervention, the Minsk agreement of 2015, involving Russia, Ukraine, the US, France and Germany, recognised Russian security interests in Ukraine and promised autonomy for the Russians in Donbas. However, the Ukrainians subsequently reneged on its commitments.

In 2021, the US revived the issue of Ukrainian NATO membership, provoking Putin to demand written guarantees that no such expansion would take place and that Russia’s sphere of influence would be respected. Instead, the situation aggravated with NATO transfers of military assistance to Ukraine and deployment of NATO strategic weapons along the Russian border. This finally triggered the Russian military intervention on 22 February.

While Russia has indeed intervened in an independent country, America and its allies are hardly in a position to be sanctimonious. They have invaded Iraq, Syria and Libya on spurious grounds. The US also continues to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, which had led to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. As such Washington must accept Moscow’s sphere of influence. The UN Charter is, therefore, not an ala Carte menu — it must be respected by all sides.

The West is also being hypocritical by condemning Russia on humanitarian grounds having caused the suffering of millions of Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Afghans which continues. The Western case is even worse since a racist distinction is being made now between white blonde Ukrainians suffering a fate reserved for Africans and Asians.

Contrary to the Western narrative, there are still some prominent Americans who have challenged US policy. Veteran diplomats like Henry Kissinger, George Kenan and Jack Matlock as well as scholars such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky have accused the US of creating this crisis by expanding NATO. Instead they propose acceptance of Russian geopolitical interests and converting Ukraine into a neutral buffer state like Finland and Austria. Similarly, economic experts have argued that sanctions on Russia would not only be ineffective and counter-productive but also lead to increase in international prices of oil and gas, agricultural products and minerals, even as Europe’s dependence on Russian energy will grow further.

Since China has fully supported Russia, this will enhance Moscow’s capability to withstand sanctions while further strengthening their alliance, thereby confronting the US with an even more dangerous two front global challenge. Eventually, therefore, despite all the western posturing, the end game in Ukraine will ensure Russian security, probably with Ukraine becoming a neutral state.

Accordingly, Pakistan has pursued the correct policy by remaining neutral in this crisis. The Prime Minister was also correct in going ahead with his pre-planned meeting with Putin in Moscow. Pakistan’s strategic interests require a balanced policy in a multi-polar world. The upward trajectory in relations with Russia must, therefore, be maintained. We must also remain mindful of Russia’s legitimate security interests in response to Western provocation.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 12^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.