If one steps outside the box of conventional “wisdom” and “sabre-rattling”, it is not a stretch to conclude that our leaders in the Western world are:
conveniently ignoring historical agreements, and
engaging in knee-jerk reactions that are not conducive to effective diplomacy.
As the 40th anniversary approaches, there is an important lesson from the Falklands Affair that could and should be applied to the Ukraine situation.
One of the most important considerations in both disputes was/is the right to the self-determination of ethnic groups on disputed territory. In 1982, the population of the Falkland Islands was inherently of British origin and lived under British sovereignty. They did not wish this to change. Argentina broke international law by invading the Islands with military force against the wishes of the Islanders. This military occupation understandably provoked a British military reaction. A Task Force was launched in quick time. The world watched with great interest as the 2 nations battled it out. Critically and unlike the Ukraine problem, the Falklands war was fought in a bubble: 2 nations contesting sovereignty without any dependency upon allies or 3rd party interests.
As far as I’m aware and unlike the Falklands, the country of Ukraine is an amalgamation of different ethnic groups that lack cohesion – some of whom have no inherent loyalty to the declared “central government”. As I understand it, the population of the disputed Eastern regions (Donetsk and Luhansk) is predominantly Russian, as was the population of Crimea. In the latter case, there was overwhelming local support for the return to Russian sovereignty.
Regarding current tensions surrounding Ukraine, there would appear to be an excellent opportunity for diplomacy and the right for self-determination to be applied in the East – rather than a proliferation of military sabre-rattling and threats of sanctions. Russia has twice made legal, treaty commitments to the sovereignty of Ukraine, which means that Ukraine should be free to join whatever organization it may wish to, though no organization is obliged to invite Kiev to join.
To some, it may be heresy for me to suggest that Russia has every cause to be cautious about the incremental territorial steps that NATO has taken towards the East in direct contravention of the promises made by the West to Gorbachev in 1990 at the end of the Cold War. Throughout history Russia has seen its territory invaded from the west on several occasions and perhaps should not be blamed for a certain level of paranoia concerning the possibility of another occurrence.
In 1990, according to the actual documents published by the US National Security Archive detailing what Gorbachev was promised, Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch” east of Germany. Thirty years ago, that was Russia’s red line.
In 2015, Russia’s National Security Strategy noted that NATO’s “continued expansion and the approach of its military infrastructure to Russia’s borders, all create threat to national security.”
On December 12, 2017, according to the late Stephen Cohen in his book, “War With Russia?” the documents finally, and authoritatively, revealed that, “the truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved – the US, the UK, France, Germany itself – made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways.”
Since these assurances were given in 1990, NATO has wandered its way through Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and Poland. Six hundred miles of broken pledges have brought the U.S. and NATO to the border of Ukraine. The valuable buffer zone between Russia and its European/NATO neighbours has disappeared.
By December 2, 2021, NATO encroachment on the buffer zone had moved from “not one inch” to 600 miles and Vladimir Putin said he would now seek a promise that NATO would not expand further east to Ukraine.
It didn’t have to be this way. Like Gorbachev before him at the end of the cold war, Putin has hoped to help create an international community that, rather than building blocs, featured cooperation among equals. He had even suggested Russian membership in NATO. In the speech where he drew Russia’s new red line, Putin was still suggesting a cooperative solution. He said that the “working out specific agreements” should be done “in a dialogue with the United States and its allies.” He added, diplomatically, that “we aren’t demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account.”
While this would obviously be the least confrontational path, it is unlikely to be taken as the only assurances being given today come from Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin, who recently reassured Georgia and Ukraine that the “door is still open” to NATO membership, much to the chagrin of Moscow.
Is it therefore little wonder that Putin has massed considerable military strength on the eastern Ukraine border? That he is making a stand is quite understandable.
Russia has twice made legal, treaty commitments to the sovereignty of Ukraine, which means that Ukraine should be free to join whatever organization it may wish to, though no organization is obliged to invite Kiev to join. However, although Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor is likely to be accepted as such, Putin would appear to be establishing a red line dissuading the US and NATO from interfering with Ukrainian sovereignty and the self-determination of its peoples. At the same time and critically he would appear to be testing the resolve and judgment of Joe Biden and his Administration. POTUS’ dreadful handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal has suggested weakness.
POTUS needs to take a step back from posturing and threats and should, in bilateral talks with Russia, establish a consensus on the rights of self-determination for the people of what is now eastern Ukraine. The retired US Ambassador to the Ukraine, Dick Viets, and his colleagues have made it very clear that the annexation of Crimea by Russia was fully supported by the Crimean populace and was accomplished through acceptable legal/diplomatic initiatives. Could not now POTUS, with a rare exhibition of statesmanship, suggest to Putin and to Ukraine that a referendum within the disputed provinces should be held and monitored by international observers? This would establish justifiable support or otherwise for the ceding of sovereignty to Russia. The remaining part of Ukraine could then be established/agreed as a neutral territory with its own sovereignty independent of the United States and Russia.
As you may gather from the above, I do not believe that the United States and NATO (or indeed Russia) have any substantive right to intervene in Ukrainian affairs. Indeed, any such unilateral initiative is likely to exacerbate and enhance unnecessary and dangerous tension between the major powers, NATO and Russia.
