Ukraine, Russia, and neighbouring Belarus were born about 1,200 years ago on the banks of the Dnieper River, rooted as Kievan Rus, a mediaeval superpower that included a large portion of Eastern Europe. However, linguistically, historically, and, most crucially, politically, Russians and Ukrainians diverged.

Moreover, when Putin came to power, he has consistently stated that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” part of the “Russian civilization,” which also includes neighbouring Belarus. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are dismissive of his allegations.

Ukraine saw two revolutions in 2005 and 2014, both times refusing Russia’s supremacy and pursuing a path to membership in the European Union and NATO. Putin is particularly angered by the thought of NATO facilities on his borders, claiming that Ukraine joining the US-led transatlantic alliance would be a “red line” crossed.

Following Ukraine’s 2014 Revolution of Dignity, which saw months of protests eventually remove pro-Moscow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Putin took advantage of the power vacuum to invade Crimea and support separatists in the southern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The insurgents established two autocratic, economically weak “People’s Republics” in which the death penalty was reinstated. They oversaw a slew of concentration camps where activists were tortured and killed.

The struggle quickly escalated into Europe’s most ferocious conflict. More than 13,000 people have been murdered and millions have been displaced as a result of the disaster.

The Ukrainian military was under-equipped and demoralised in 2014, whereas the insurgents possessed Russian “consultants” and weapons.

However, Ukrainians are considerably stronger militarily and morally these days, and thousands of volunteers who assisted in repelling the separatists are ready to do it all over again.

‘Nothing has alienated Ukraine more in the last eight years than Kremlin policies, particularly Russia’s military invasion of Crimea in 2014 and its engagement in the Donbas conflict, which has taken over 13,000 lives’ – Steven Pifer (Standford Scholar)

According to government sources in Western Europe and the United States, Russia has gathered more than 100,000 Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian border and has occupied Crimea in recent weeks. This has raised fears in Kyiv that a new war with its neighbour and former province, which chose to break free from Moscow’s political orbit, is on the horizon.

Russia, on the other hand, rejects any plans for an invasion. Moscow claims that it has the ability to move Russian soldiers wherever it wants and that all of its actions are defensive.

Russian authorities, including President Vladimir Putin, have cautioned NATO not to expand eastward.

Ukraine purchased or acquired advanced equipment from the West and Turkey, including Javelin missiles, which proved fatal to separatist tanks, and Bayraktar drones, which played an important role in last year’s battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The suspension of military aid and arms deliveries to Kyiv precipitated former US President Donald Trump’s first impeachment. In the following weeks, his successor, Joe Biden, may send lethal weaponry and advice.

Because of the modern weaponry being used—mostly nuclear—the horror of this war escalating is greater than that of any previous conflict in recent years. This is in addition to the comments exchanged by Putin and the other European leaders.

“If he launches another invasion, he will force the west to bring about much of what he seeks to prevent.” – Boris Johnson (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). Wrote this in reference to Russia’s military targeting the border of Ukraine and their State.

Aside from ideological and political considerations, Putin had sorely sought Ukraine’s inclusion in a Moscow-dominated free-trade zone that had been established in 2000. The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) brought together various ex-Soviet states and was largely regarded as a first step toward resurrecting the USSR.

Ukraine was planned to be the most important member of the EAEC after Russia, with a population of 43 million and a tremendous agricultural and industrial production, but Kyiv declined to join.

Ukraine’s economy sank after the country cut ties with Russia, its erstwhile primary economic partner. However, seven years into the conflict, the recession has ended, as international prices for Ukraine’s main exports, grain and steel, skyrocket, and Ukrainian businesses and labour migrants find new ways to the West.

Ukraine and Uzbekistan, with a combined population of 34 million, are expected to be included in order for this market to flourish and become self-sufficient. That is why these states are constantly embroiled in geopolitical conflicts with Russia. Further fueling the motivation and development of the current crisis that we are seeing in 2022 between the two Nations.

Putin’s favour ratings are falling as Russians oppose vaccinations and lament the economic hardships caused by the virus.

Following the annexation of Crimea and the emergence of a new war or escalation, it is considered that Putin has done so at an opportune time in order to divert public attention away from domestic concerns and improve Putin’s popularity. He also wants to reestablish contact with the West, particularly the United States, and amassing an army near Ukraine has already been effective.

“Dialogue is necessary because that’s the only thing that will help, in my view, to build a context of security and stability on the European Continent.” – President Macron (The President of France).

Russia’s illegal invasion of Crimea in 2014 was Europe’s largest land grab since World War II, and it violated many of Russia’s obligations to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Kremlin then incited and supported the fighting in Donbas, in some cases with genuine Russian army formations. These activities had significant negative consequences for Russia’s relations with the West, and the West replied. For example, the US and Europe collaborated on sanctions aimed at the Russian economy. NATO, which had been reducing its military capability since the early 1990s, changed course; member states agreed to raise defence spending, with a target of 2% of GDP by 2024. Furthermore, NATO began deploying ground soldiers on its eastern flank in member states.

Moscow has attempted to portray this crisis as one between Russia and NATO, but still the Kremlin’s principal aim is Ukraine. This has something to do with geopolitics and Moscow’s aim for a sphere of influence in post-Soviet space. It is, nevertheless, very much about Russian domestic politics. A Ukraine that constructs its own path, consolidates its democracy, and implements reforms that unleash the full potential of its economy is a nightmare for the Kremlin: Such a Ukraine would prompt Russians to question why they do not have the same political voice as Ukrainian citizens – and perhaps even contest Putin’s authoritarianism.

The Third Eye stands with and supports Ukraine during this difficult time

The post Russia’s refusal to recognise Ukraine as an independent state has resulted in a huge strategic defeat appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Alexia Manduca

Modern day EU is often quoted as being; ‘the epitome of democracy and international liberalism in action’ and ‘a model to other states‘. However, this does not imply that the EU is perfect or without flaws. In analyzing the EU’s relations with Russia, we can begin to question this perception of the EU. Is the European Union living behind a façade of peace and democracy only to be hiding a darker reality?

Europe’s History

Europe was characterised by a mess of dynasties, short-lived alliances and war, for millenia. The accumulation of Europe’s violence in WWI and subsequently WWII which led to millions of deaths shows this. However, contemporary Europe has proven to be much more peaceful and stable as a region. Arguably, the stimulus for this was the assertion of liberal democracies and the creation of the European Union. In fact, the original aim for the creation of the EU was for states to collaborate in industrial sectors of coal and steel to make even the mere possibility of war, impossible. Therefore, the original aims of the founding fathers of the union were successful.

Russia’s History

Russia has a long-standing history of insecurity. Covering 11 % of the world’s total landmass, it is the largest country in the world. Therefore, it’s no surprise that geopolitics plays such an important role in Russia’s international relations. Prior to the creation of the EU, relations between European states and Russia fluctuated. The relationship was often hostile as rising European powers have invaded Russia on several occasions. Due to this, Russia has often dominated the nations on its borders to seek protection. This can be seen in the creation of the Eastern bloc during the Cold War.

Putin, as many Russian leaders before him, claims that Russia has a so-called ‘historic right’ to dominate this ‘buffer zone’. Why is this mentality still prevalent? At face value, the EU hasn’t shown an ounce of aggression in comparison to the past. Reviewing the unique relationship between Russia and the European Union might answer this question.

Relationship Dynamics: Russia and The EU

Since 1997 the EU’s political and economic relations with Russia have been based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. This agreement has made the EU Russia’s most important economic partner. It has also made Russia the EU’s fifth largest trading partner as well. The EU is also the largest collective investor in Russia, owning ~75% of stocks in 2018. On paper EU-Russian relations seem to be stable and prospering, however these strong economic ties hide a more unstable reality.

Russian leaders view the very creation and existence of the EU and the admission of Russia’s border states into the union in an extremely negative light. Despite good initial relations, the rise of Putin has led to some stark changes in the Kremlin’s attitude towards the EU. This boils down to Russia’s historic claim over a ‘sphere of influence’ over Eastern Europe; a region now populated by numerous EU member states. Russian-EU bilateral relations are largely shaped by the fact that the EU is increasingly encroaching on Russia’s border and challenging this historic claim.

Is Russia acting out of instinctive paranoia or is the EU actually posing a threat to Russian security and interests?

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine are not dissimilar to Soviet Russia’s invasion of its periphery in the second half of the 20th century. Were these initiatives simply Russia’s reaction to the overarching policies of the EU in this area? It is arguable that Putin was simply defending Russia from European states as so many Russian leaders did before him.

What about the Economic Ties?

Even economic ties between the two are somewhat ambiguous . Russia’s economic interests were being viewed as increasingly threatened by The EU’s Eastern Partnership. A clear example is that following the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Russia could no longer develop bilateral trade agreements with EU states as it did previously and had to negotiate through the European Commission. Increased authority over trade policies was also given to The European Parliament. This negatively impacted Russian economic policies. The Kremlin prefers to negotiate directly with individual member states, where Russia would have more leverage in any negotiation.

The EU’s Third Energy package also negatively affected Russia’s economic interests. It aimed at diversifying EU sources of natural gas which reduced Russian profits from its gas exports. The current debacle going over the NordStream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia to Germany exemplifies this geopolitical tension.

Concluding Words

The relationship between Russia and the EU is a complicated one. It is full of contradictions making it difficult to interpret the stances taken by both sides. The basis of Russian foreign policy towards the EU is largely shaped by its historical memory and a sense of paranoia towards the region. Despite having largely positive economic relations, the sphere of security in the Russian government views the enlargement of the EU towards the East as threatening. They believe it’s threatening the very makeup of Russian defense and also challenging Russia’s historical interests in the region. Is the EU being inconsiderate towards Russian strategic interests or is the Russian government simply being paranoid?

Check this piece we had written a while back on European Youth- Why Don’t We Care?

The post ANALYSIS: Is EU Expansion a Catalyst for Russian Aggression? | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.