The Russia-Ukraine-NATO-US standoff is becoming intense. Like conflicts in the Middle East, it is more and less complicated than commonly understood. A summary foreshadows the likely outcomes.
To start with, Russian history is worth a nod. Founded in 882, Russia became Christian in 988, prior to the East-West Church split in 1054. Russia evolved – like much of Europe – into a monarchy or Tsardom in 1547, was an “empire” under Peter the Great after 1721 (closely tied to Europe), freed slaves or surfs in 1861 (before America), almost became a republic in the early 1900s, then was overtaken by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, triggering 70 years of oppression under the Soviets, collapse of that Communist state in 1991, the same year Ukraine – finally – got independence.
The strategic significance of Ukraine, gradually more important over the centuries, was essentially three-fold. First, it holds the warm water port of Sevastopol, a rare deep port on the Black Sea, critical for both Russian and Ukrainian access to the Mediterranean and Atlantic.
Second, Greater Russia – in historical context and by reference to the original Christian and Russian-speaking territories – has always been both sprawling and slightly paranoid about borders. In stark contrast to current indifference to the US border, Russia has always been preoccupied about invasion.
The relative merits of Russian border paranoia are bounded by two harsh facts: The Soviet Union was Communist, ruthless, oppressive, and expansive, taking and dominating Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Baltics, and points on the Soviet periphery. Those actions were immoral, illegal, and indefensible.
On the other hand, Russia has been invaded repeatedly over history, beginning with the Mogul invasion of 1223, which incidentally began in Kiev, which today is in Ukraine. It was a central part of Christian Russia, and later the Soviet sphere, until freed in 1991. Just listen to “Bells of Kiev” by Mussorgsky.
The invasions of Russia over time were not inconsequential, even if the Soviets used that as an ugly excuse for Communist expansion. The included Crimean War of 1571, invasions by Poland, Sweden, France under Napoleon, Japan to the East, Germany in WWI, and again in WWII.
These events – if you read Russian history, books like the “Icon and the Axe,” by James Billington, or any credible Russian history – were costly and left deep scars on the Russian people. Unlike the US, which lost half a million dead to WWII, the Russian territory was invaded – and they lost 27 million. That kind of thing leaves deep cultural, psychological, and security syndromes.
Of course, none of that justifies – in our modern age – military suppression of another country’s sovereignty, people, rights, or invasion of their territory. Nothing justified the Russian invasion of Georgia (on its border) or Ukraine in 2104 – an independent country – or Russia’s seizure of Sevastopol.
The right course would have been – as with places like formerly free Hong Kong and formerly leased Panama, both vital to the West – a negotiated agreement and long-term lease for Russian access, profiting Ukraine and satisfying fears. The Obama-Biden White House had that chance, punted it.
So, where are we now? Like a festering sore, too long ignored, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, compounded by unaddressed aspirations by Ukraine and concerns by Russia over NATO membership (ironically once imagined by former Bush 41 Secretary of State James Baker to possibly include Russia itself!), has grown infected, inflamed, and now borders on geopolitical gangrene.
Where we are now – is a product of poor communication going back 30 years, permissive behavior by the Obama and Biden White Houses – Allowing Russia to think America and NATO are a paper tiger, their word not real.
This crisis is also a product of recent events. An autocratic Russian leader tested Biden and learned he can act with impunity – after no price was sought for START Treaty extension, Biden’s nod for a transcontinental pipeline making Europe dependent on Russia, Obama-Biden balk in Syria, Biden’s horrific, shameless, chaotic retreat from Afghanistan.
So, where does all this leave us? Reports put up to 175,000 Russian troops on Ukraine’s border, with possible shadow populations “refugees”) on borders (controlled by Russia in Belarus) of NATO countries, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Putin is pushing his luck. Biden – who was effectively asleep until recent days, as he was in the runup to the Afghanistan departure in fear of the Taliban – has come alive, at least in words. Demands put to him by Russia back in December have suddenly gotten a response, private – likely to shield appeasement.
Publicly, a scared-looking President and Secretary of State have used contradictory words and phrases, like “massive consequences” and then “common ground” and “pragmatic.” The truth is, words are cheap, and they get cheaper when contradictory, late, and carrying little historic or instant credibility.
Russia wants Ukraine to stay within its own orbit, if not officially, then unofficially. They want assurances Ukraine never becomes part of NATO. They are pushing for a power grab, too. Their demands are transparently illegal, and fed by a rich combination of opportunism, paranoia, avarice, and history.
Where will it end? That depends on whether a credible threat by the US and NATO of meaningful, swift, and certain consequences, military, trade, diplomatic, and – above all – lasting and painful, is delivered.
To date, the progression – looks a lot like back-and-fill appeasement, too little too late at best, not much, and not likely to stop the Russian power and territory grab at worst. People around the world – including our adversaries – do not believe Biden and his feckless team.
What the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, and others see if profound, objective, recurring acts of weakness, bordering on incomprehension, disengagement, indifference, incompetence, and leadership cowardice. We can only hope seasoned diplomats intercede, because trends look dark. What we are seeing, at the nub, is an absence of US leadership.