Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took not only the world, but Ukraine itself by shock, causing mass outrage and an expected outpour of anti-Russian war propaganda throughout Western media.
Following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recognition of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, it became clear that a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine was slowly withering away. In response to this move the United States and its NATO allies decided to take the escalation a step further by axing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and sanctioning Russia. Despite claims that these measures would work to pressure Moscow into accepting a diplomatic solution, it seemed only to have provided more justification for further reaction.
At this point, Russia’s ‘Special military operation’ in Donbas has clearly translated into a full scale military takeover of Ukraine which could now end in one of various different scenarios. NATO powers have made clear their intention to stay out of direct combat against Russia, relying on heavy sanctions in order to pressure Moscow to end its offensive. For the many claiming this conflict will result in a third world war, this is extremely unlikely. Although it is fair to assume the West will act relatively unhinged, in this case there is clearly a consensus that direct military action against Russia will mean too high a price. When faced with the possibility of war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a similar calculation was made by the Trump administration to assassinate Iran’s top General, Qassem Soleimani. Although ballistic missile strikes had directly targeted US military facilities in Iraq following the assassination.
Perhaps the worst case scenario here would be that, following Russia’s inevitable victory over the Ukrainian armed forces, the NATO alliance would finance and arm Ukrainian militias to wage guerrilla warfare against the Russian forces. If Moscow then seeks to take these militias out, then a huge civilian death toll is inevitable. The motivation behind NATO using this tactic in Ukraine would be to bog the Russians down and exact great costs on them militarily and economically. The best case scenario may be an attempted repeat of the 12 day war with Georgia, waged by the Russians, which resulted in the recognition of the Republics of South Ossetian and Abkhaz, and them effectively obtaining autonomy from Georgia, without international recognition and the stationing of Russian forces there. In this case, perhaps Russia will attempt to maintain Donetsk and Luhansk as allies along its border, with a changed Ukrainian government which will either be pro-Russian or neutral.
What is important to know here, is that to view this situation blindly as “the mad man Putin” invading Ukraine for absolutely no reason other than to annex the entire country and re-form the Soviet Union, is a politically immature reading of this situation. The situation truly dates back to 2013, when then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych decided to sign a deal with Russia, bringing Kiev closer to Moscow’s sphere of influence. This sparked massive anti-government protests and drove the sentiment in the country against being pulled into Russia’s sphere of influence, as opposed to that of the EU clearly played a role. In February of 2014, NATO then backed a color revolution resulting in a coup and the installation of a pro-Western government in Ukraine.
Despite assurances from NATO to Russia in the past that it would not attempt to expand its alliance further onto its borders, the US led alliance has been doing just that since the early 2000’s. In Putin’s address, declaring his recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk, he noted NATO’s encroachment and potential security threats, also undermining Ukraine as an independent country by noting the fact that the nation was really formed by the Bolsheviks and hence was a creation of Russia. In Ukraine, 1 in 6 are roughly ethnic Russians and 1 in 3 speak Russian as a native language, in the East of Ukraine especially is where the majority of Ethnic Russians live. The fact that so much of Ukraine is Russian is why, for instance, Crimea did not resist Russian annexation and voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia.
The issue of the 8 year conflict in the Donbas has also hugely contributed to Russians supporting their country’s military efforts at this time, hence the name Putin has given to his military operation. For the Russian people, when they see that a conflict has waged between the pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces, resulting in 14,000 dead, it pulls on the heart strings. The fact that NATO — which itself has committed its own illegitimate military interventions, as seen under international law — is now lecturing Russia, holds no weight for those who know the history of NATO aggression. Especially when it comes to the United States government, the irony of them opposing illegal occupation, a violation of sovereignty, and a war of aggression, is almost laughable given its own long (and ongoing) history of doing exactly the same. The only difference between the US Government and the Russian Government, in this case, is that Washington will never suffer the full consequences of its wars. Many may not know that within roughly the same time frame as Russia had invaded Ukraine, the US military had bombarded Yemen, Somalia and its ally Israel — also opposed to Russia’s move — had bombarded Syria, all unprovoked and illegal actions under international law.
NATO may never have even been heading towards inaugurating Ukraine as a member state, as many have argued, but they most certainly have removed a pro-Russian leadership and installed a pro-Western one. On top of this, the West has sent military assistance to Ukraine, much of which has ended up into the hands of the Azov Batallion — an openly neo-Nazi battalion included in Ukraine’s military. There has been a 7 year period during which the West could have pursued dialogue and a peaceful settlement, by creating a neutral Ukraine, but they have failed to do that and have refused to publicly state that Kiev will not become part of NATO.
The West’s approach here is very clear; they seek expansion of their influence, but what they also seek to achieve now is stunting the influence and growth of Russia. By drawing Russia into Ukraine, they may be attempting to bog it down, bleed it economically and cut it down to size.
Out of this could easily come a “new cold war” as it is being openly referred to now. However, we have to keep in mind that Russia is not the Soviet Union; it’s not driven by the same ideological force that drove the USSR and is not about to use Global South liberation causes for a worldwide Marxist agenda. What it may now do, is in fact use its alliances and power to pressure the West, but it won’t be done in the same ideologically driven manner as was the case in the past, it will be done from a more Machiavellian realist approach. This could mean, for instance, we see Syria more active against its enemies, but it shouldn’t be expected that Moscow behave like the former Soviet Union. We are dealing with an intervention here, but the context is key. To ignore the West’s role in essentially drawing Russia into this and cheering on NATO, is a pro-war position, not an anti-war one. It was inevitable that this invasion was to come to fruition, although most of us did not see it happening so quickly.
Unfortunately for the civilians of Ukraine, the newest phase of this seemingly never-ending game of imperial tug-of-war has them caught in the crossfire. This is not a war between Ukraine and Russia, it’s a form of confrontation between NATO and Russia, Ukraine is the West’s shield. Just as Washington did not officially enter into Syria directly to challenge the government of Bashar al-Assad, instead primarily backing militant groups, the proxy force tactic is again being used today in Ukraine. This is not pro-Russian propaganda, it’s simply reality. Accepting this does not mean picking a side, it just means choosing to be honest with ourselves about what we can prove.
