Ukraine’s friends in the West say they protect the country when they defend its right to join NATO. But it is quite the opposite. By defending a theoretical right, they put Ukraine’s security at risk by increasing the probability of a Russian invasion.
(You may be interested in: Russia – Ukraine: President Zelensky proposes a meeting with Putin).
Ukraine’s independence can be much better defended by reaching a diplomatic agreement with Russia that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty as a non-NATO country, in the manner of Austria, Finland and Sweden (all members of the European Union, but not of NATO).
Specifically, Russia will agree to withdraw its troops from eastern Ukraine and demobilize those it has deployed near the Ukrainian border; and NATO will refuse to incorporate Ukraine, on condition that Russia respects NATO’s sovereignty and that Ukraine respects Russian security interests. An agreement of this nature is possible, since it suits both parties.
(We recommend: What is happening in Ukraine and Russia?).
It is true that those who defend the Ukraine’s entry into NATO they consider such an agreement to be naive. They point out that in 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, and that the current crisis arose because Russia gathered more than a hundred thousand soldiers on the border with Ukraine and threatens a new invasion. In doing so, the Kremlin violated the terms of the Budapest Memorandum (1994), in which Russia promised to respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty (including Crimea) in exchange for Ukraine handing over the huge nuclear arsenal it inherited after the collapse. of the Soviet Union.
Even so, Russia may accept and respect a neutral Ukraine. But there was never an offer where Ukraine got that condition. In 2008, the United States proposed inviting Ukraine (and Georgia) to NATO, and that suggestion has hung over the region ever since. Considering that the American move was a provocation to Russia, the governments of France, Germany and many other European countries avoided an immediate invitation from the Alliance to Ukraine; but in a joint statement with this country, the NATO leadership made it clear that Ukraine “will become a member of NATO.”
the look of moscow
From the Kremlin’s point of view, NATO’s presence in Ukraine would pose a direct threat to Russia’s security. Soviet political engineering was largely aimed at creating a geographical separation between Russia and the Western powers; and since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has staunchly opposed a NATO enlargement within the former Soviet bloc.
(We recommend: Putin ‘has made the decision’ to invade Ukraine, says Biden.)
It is true that Putin’s reasoning exhibits the continuity of a Cold War mentality; but that mentality remains active on both sides.
Ukraine will be much safer if NATO stops its eastward expansion in exchange for Russia withdrawing from eastern Ukraine and demobilizing its forces on the border.
The Cold War was characterized by a series of proxy wars at the local and regional levels through which the United States and the Soviet Union determined which of the two would install a favorable regime. Although the battlefield has moved around the world – from Southeast and Central Asia to Africa, the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East – it has always been bloody.
But since 1992, most regime change wars have been led or supported by the United States, which became convinced that it was the only superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union. NATO forces bombed Bosnia in 1995 and Belgrade in 1999, invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and bombed Libya in 2011. The United States invaded Iraq in 2003; and in 2014 he openly supported the protests in Ukraine that brought down pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Of course, Russia also carried out regime change operations. In 2004 she interfered in Ukraine to help Yanukovych through voter intimidation and electoral fraud, but local institutions and mass protests ended up foiling her actions. And she keeps imposing or propping up friendly regimes on the near periphery of it; the most recent examples are Kazakhstan and Belarus, which is already under full control of Putin.
(Also: NATO sees signs that Russia is preparing an ‘all-out attack on Ukraine’).
But throughout its history, Russia feared (and in fact endured) repeated invasions from the west, while Europeans feared and endured repeated Russian expansionist attempts from the east. It has been a long, sad and bloody saga.
With political height on both sides, this historical animosity could have been placated after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. There was an opportunity in the first half of the 1990s, but it was missed, and the start of NATO’s enlargement clearly played a role in this.
early warning
In 1998, George F. Kennan, the veteran diplomat and historian of US-Soviet relations, was prescient and pessimistic. “I think (NATO’s expansion) is the start of a new Cold War,” he declared. “I think over time the Russians will react quite badly and it will affect their policies. I think it’s a tragic mistake”.
William Perry, US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997, agreed with Kennan, even contemplating resigning from President Bill Clinton’s administration over the issue.
Since neither side can claim to be innocent, instead of trying to portray one side as good and the other as bad, we have to focus on what needs to be done to make both sides safe and the world in general.
(Continue reading: The intelligence report on Russian interference in Venezuela and Colombia).
History suggests that it is better to maintain a geographical separation between Russian and NATO forces.instead of facing each other across a border. There was never such insecurity in Europe and the world as when US and Soviet forces came face to face at close range: in Berlin in 1961 and in Cuba in 1962. In those harrowing circumstances, in which the whole world was at risk, the construction of the Berlin Wall – albeit tragic – acted as a stabilizer.
Today our main concern should be the sovereignty of Ukraine and peace in Europe and the world, not the presence of NATO in Ukraine (let alone building another wall).
Ukraine will be much safer if NATO stops its eastward expansion in exchange for Russia withdrawing from eastern Ukraine and demobilizing its forces on the border. There is an urgent need for diplomacy along these lines, with the participation of the EU and the United Nations.
JEFFREY D. SACHS
© PROJECT SYNDICATE
NEW YORK
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a distinguished professor at Columbia University and director of its Center for Sustainable Development. President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Also find in International:
Is climate change the biggest threat to global security?
#protect #sovereignty #Ukraine