UKRAINE CRISIS: A GAME OF DOG AND THE BONE

Pic Courtesy: Aljazeera

Ukraine, since independence in 1991 has been torn between its former Soviet masters (Russia) and the Western institutions (NATO) it wants to join.

 

Historical Background

Independence. In December 1991, Ukraine voted in favour of independence from the Soviet Union in a referendum. Russian President Boris Yeltsin accepted the vote and Russia, Ukraine and Belarus set up a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

(Process of fall of the mighty Russian empire – USSR)

 

Agreement. In the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the US in December 1994 agreed to respect the independence, sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. The agreement was in exchange for Ukraine abandoning the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union.

(Action justified as it was required to control Nuclear Proliferation.)

 

Friendship Treaty. In May 1997 Russia and Ukraine signed a friendship treaty. It settled a key disagreement and allowed Russia to retain ownership of the majority of ships in the Black Sea fleet (based in Ukraine’s Crimea) in exchange of Moscow paying Kyiv a modest rent to use the port of Sebastopol. Moscow also remained Kyiv’s most important commercial partner, with Ukraine totally dependent on Russian oil and gas.

(Treaty heavily in favour of Russia – but Ukraine had to accept it)

 

Economic Push and Pull.

In 2003, Ukraine signed an accord with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan on a Common Economic Space. Western bloc showed displeasure indicating that these actions could hinder Ukraine’s rapprochement with the bloc and its membership to the World Trade Organization.

(Economic factors are big drivers of the geopolitics and foreign affairs).

 

Russia and Ukraine were engaged in several disputes, notably over gas in 2006 and 2009 which disrupt Europe’s energy supplies.

(Wheels within wheels)

 

Main Bone Of Contention

Perceiving the CIS as an attempt to bring ex-Soviet republics under Moscow’s control, Ukraine always takes a lukewarm approach to it. Its tilt is towards the West and it seeks ties with the US-led NATO military alliance.

(This is not palatable to Russia. The question is how far it would go to retain control of its erstwhile state)

 

Domestic See Saw

For 10 years under the leadership of Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine staggered between the Eastern and the western bloc.

 

Orange Revolution.  Ukraine’s 2004 presidential election was marred by fraud and the victory of the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych provoked unprecedented protests in the peaceful Orange Revolution.

(Classic case of one country meddling in the elections of another one).

 

Western Tilt and Push. The uproar led to the election results being cancelled and pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko (who was the victim of a mysterious dioxin poisoning during the campaign), became president.  Yuschenko swiftly reiterated Ukraine’s wish to join the EU, along with NATO. In 2008 at a summit in Bucharest, NATO leaders agreed that Ukraine has a future in the alliance, sparking Moscow’s ire.

(Majority always prevails)

 

Eastern Attempt & Pro-European uprising. Yanukovych got elected as president in 2010, and in November 2013 he suspended the talks on a trade pact with the EU in favour of closer ties with Russia. This sparked a massive protest by pro-European opposition groups demanding that the pro-Russian president quits. The uprising, centred on Kyiv’s Independence Square, came to a head in February 2014 when police fired on the protesters. Around 100 demonstrators and 20 police officers died during the three-month uprising. Finally, Yanukovych fled to Russia and was impeached.

(Russian desperation to retain control is evident)

 

Annexation and War: Further Souring Of Relations.

Pic Courtesy: Internet

In 2014, Russia sent its Special Forces to take control of strategic sites on Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula. In March 2014 Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty absorbing Crimea into Russia. The annexation provoked the worst diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia,  since the fall of the Soviet Union.

(Nibbling Starts)

 

Genesis of Current Crisis

In April 2014, a pro-Russian rebellion erupted in Ukraine’s industrial eastern areas. Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk declare their regions to be independent. Ukraine and its Western allies accused Russia of instigating the uprising and pouring in arms and troops to bolster the self-proclaimed republics. The clashes became a full-blown conflict in May 2014. This conflict has left more than 14,000 people dead.

 

Present Situation

After massing tens of thousands of soldiers on Ukraine’s borders, Putin on February 21, 2022 recognises the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk.

 

Bottom Line

Russia seems to go to any length to retain control over its erstwhile states.

Russia seems to be following the Chinese policy of nibbling (The difference being instead of Salami slicing it is resorting to nibbling and gobbling up bigger chunks).

 

Question

Where will this East versus West clash of interest lead to?

When will this East versus West clash end?

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome

 

Links to previous posts on the subject:

RUSSIA – UKRAINE CRISIS ESCALATES (24 FEB 22)

Latest on Ukraine-Russia Conflict (23 Feb 22)

 

 

For regular updates, please register here

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online news channels.

 

24 Replies to “UKRAINE CRISIS: A GAME OF DOG AND THE BONE”

  1. Very nicely summarised sir. I have a feeling that Russia will withdraw eventually. Will allow the Donetsk and Lungansk to simmer to remind Kyiv of who holds the handle. NATO and others will use UN and condemn Russian action.
    Tell me that I am wrong 🙂

    1. They will retain full control over Ukraine. Even when they withdraw they will have a puppet govt in Ukraine under their thumb.

  2. Conflict will continue and even if Russia takes complete control west will keep meddling out of habit! When west crosses borders it’s liberation. When Russia crosses it’s invasion!

      1. Very well summarised, Chhotu!

        I agree: let Ukrainians decide, yes.
        But, what is NATO’s raison d’être, after the USSR broke up?! Therein lies the genesis of Putin’s dukh!

    1. I think this is a classic case of “one can’t clap with one hand.
      It is aspirations of both the blocs at play. At the cost of Ukraine, which will suffer.

  3. This signals the end of a unipolar world. US, Russia, China are going to push the muti-polarity ahead; India is in a very tight position right now, until Atmanirbhar Bharat gives abundant hope. Will have to play its cards very well, balancing its principles and national interest, as EAM mentiined, while being on a sharpened knife’s edge.

    1. China needs to be watched for exploiting the situation – opportunism.
      US and the west are preoccupied with Russia and Ukraine crises.
      Taiwan must be juddering.

  4. Sir,
    Wonderful summarization. Only today I was looking for info on the genesis of the conflict. Gave me a clear understanding. Thanks a ton.
    Warm Regards

  5. The crisis in Ukraine brings to the fore some obvious and well known but often forgotten facts:
     • If you want true sovereignty then you need a materially and morally strong military.
     • If you have a dispute with a neighbour then you have to be militarily strong enough to deter that neighbour.
     • Economic strength is only good for building a strong military, it can’t be used as a weapon for causing immediate harm to a belligerent.
     • In international relations choose your friends wisely, only if you have very strong mutual national interests will anyone come to your aid to the point of risking getting into a war.
     • Might is mostly right.

  6. Presently Germany and other EU countries are dependent upon Russian natural gas.
    When USSR was at its peak there was a saying , It is better to be Red than Dead. USSR broke up. Russia was in no position to get the fragmentation back .
    Putin now perhaps wants to bring back the old days. Cremia was a test case. Ukraine will set the future course. The break away countries have a cause to worry.
    This action of Russia could
    (a) Strength the west block with US taking central role.
    (b) New and increasing ways to do away from Russian energy.
    (c) Include breakaway countries into NATO. Countries of QUAD will be brought & NATO expended.
    (d) China presently on sidelines is watching & trying to get ideas how to deal with Taiwan , & probably India
    Russian action has set in motion polarization of the world.

  7. Post cold war most of the European counties are spending less and less on defence except France & Britain. They have become geopolitically untenable and militarily indefensible.

    India should take lesson from this.

    1. The bottom line for us is to spend on the military – even if it is at the cost of development.
      Deterrence is essential for development and unhindered growth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *