 |
| bySwarajya Staff |
Can tensions over Ukraine end? The United States and Russia hold further talks, but no progress has been made. Washington has warned of the consequences of the attack. Moscow wants security assurances. Is there a way to reach the middle ground?
The United States and Russia are openly discussing what they have said in an attempt to resolve their standoff over Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly denied that a large Russian army is preparing to attack along the border. US Secretary of State Anthony Blanken said: "The United States and its allies will respond strongly if it does not reach an agreement in the meetings. Both sides will continue to take steps to reduce the crisis." The American and the Russian Foreign Ministers arrived in Geneva for important talks aimed at easing tensions in Ukraine. Anthony Blanken and Sergei Lavrov, both said, no progress was likely. Sergei Lavrov, on the other hand, said: "We do not expect any progress in this meeting or we are expecting responses to our proposals"
Question of NATO and both sides’ stance?
After the meeting, Lavrov said Moscow wanted a written response
from the US to its demands including a guarantee that NATO will not grant
membership to Ukraine, something Blinken has repeatedly called a non-starter. But
he said the US would respond to Russia if Moscow addressed its concerns and
respected Ukrainian sovereignty. "We’ve been clear if any Russian military
forces move across Ukraine's border that's a renewed invasion. It will be met
with a swift, severe and united response from the United States and our
partners and allies," said Antony Blinken. The US intelligence says Russia
has already amassed at least a hundred thousand troops on its western border
and is moving weapons into allied Belarus, north of Ukraine.
The US and Russian positions are clearly far apart. Blinken and Lavrov made very little real progress but the two men did agree to continue to pursue diplomacy as a way of de-escalating a crisis that could lead to war. It was on the shores of Lake Geneva that talks between the US and Russia led to the end of the cold war. Decades on, their old rivalry has resurfaced. Both sides accuse each other of aggression and relations have dangerously deteriorated. The outlook for the coming weeks is turbulent. The buildup of Russian troops on the border has raised fears of conflict for many Ukrainians. The first shipment of additional US military aid, worth $200 million in equipment, has arrived in the capital Kyiv but hundreds of people have rallied in the city calling for de-escalation.
Read more: US and West Vs China-Russia Nexus
Meeting and the prospect of diffusing tensions:
No one was expecting the Blinken-Lavrov meeting to produce a
breakthrough but however is it likely to defuse the tension?
It doesn’t seem so. Russia has always been very clear. It has
set out these demands of Ukraine not having its own sovereignty, not being able
to choose whether to join NATO or not, NATO is required to pull back its military
forces from allies in Poland and the Baltic states that Russia knew would be
unacceptable. Yet it considered continues to push those and insists that the US
and NATO agree to those. It's not going to happen so as a result, it’s akin to biding
time while Russia amasses more military forces in and around Ukraine. Russia is
really not looking at diplomacy seriously.
Is it the same sentiment among Ukrainians that this is just a
matter of time before an invasion by the Russians?
Argument
by Peter Zalmayev, executive director
of Eurasia Democracy Initiative (EDI).
Well, seems like the proverbial, rifle that's hanging at the
beginning of Anton Chekhov's play is set to eventually fire by the end of the
play. It's just a matter of time and a matter of the sort of scale of an attack
that will be coming from Putin, that's what most Ukrainians believe. Overall
there's less of a scenario that there will be a full kind of a blooded
attack and an invasion of Ukraine with a potential siege of the capital city of
Kyiv. That's probably unlikely but there's a whole host of options and scenarios
that Vladimir is considering simply because his concerns that NATO is
encircling Russia are genuine. What is really genuine is Vladimir Putin's lack
of desire to see a prosperous and democratic Ukraine. So anything is possible
and is on the table from a limited attack on in the east of Ukraine--a
potential land quarter to the Crimea, and maybe instigating a coup and
overthrowing the government in Kyiv.
Two-front attack:
The Russian foreign minister has been denying reports about
military buildup on the border with Ukraine. However, when we look at
the troops being amassed there and we look at the tactical groups sent to
Belarus. This is an indication that the Russians could potentially be planning
a two-front attack?
Argument by Vladimir Sotnikov, political commentator and specialist on
Russian Foreign Affairs
First I disagree with the point that Russia is going to invade or just make
any incursions into the Ukrainian territory. Actually what about those
negotiations which were held between Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Lincoln. That was a right to defuse the situation but unfortunately, these negotiations didn't give any results. So that eventually the solution to
these tangents will be found and there will be other rounds of consultations
and negotiations. Just as regards maneuvers, Russia has all the right just
to maneuver whatever the number of the troops. Let me point out that this is going
to be and this is actually taking place on the Russian territory. But that's
not a sign that Russia is going to invade and let me disagree again with my
Ukrainian colleague that Russia is preparing to encourage to invade in the east
of Ukraine or just how to make another a coup.
Russian demand of not admitting Ukraine as the member of NATO: A
stumbling block:
At the center of the negotiations talks between the Americans and
the Russians, a list of demands presented by the Russians, the key element here
the Russians want a written document from the American saying that NATO is going to be committed to
not admitting Ukraine as a member anytime in the future. Do you see the Americans Willing
for a compromise when it comes to this particular point?
Argument by Kurt:
The straightforward answer to this question is No! Ukraine is a
sovereign country. It's an independent country and has a long historical,
political social, and cultural identity that makes it a state in Europe. It is
Ukraine's right to decide whether it chooses to join a security alliance for
collective defense or not and it is not for the United States or anyone else to
say that no that's never going to happen. NATO's defensive alliance has reduced
its military capabilities dramatically over the years since the end of the cold
war. It has never attacked or threatened Russia. So the idea that Russia which has attacked Ukraine and has attacked
other countries in the neighborhood and has taken their territory can be a threat
is real. It’s important for a country like Ukraine to seek to join NATO. So it
doesn’t seem being taken off the table as a possibility. It won't happen soon,
but I don't think anyone's going to write off that possibility.
When you look at the statements made by NATO, European allies over
the last few years over the issue of Ukraine. Do you feel you're in a confident
position where, if needs be, the Americans Along with NATO and Europeans would
be there to protect the Ukrainians?
Let me just pick up a very brief comment on what ambassador Volker
said and encounter what our Russian panelists said. Whether Russia
is or is not planning to attack Donbas, let's be clear that it already has
annexed Crimea contrary to all international agreements and it instigated a war
in the east of Ukraine. It's not a civil war contrary to what Russia says. Now regarding a question about NATO’s prospective protection to Ukrainians. I would not be so
hopeful, unfortunately. Ukrainians are also not very reassured especially after
what we heard from president bidden when he decided to insert a dose of bracing
honesty about NATO's potential response to a variety of different scenarios,
something that is honest but should have been confined to private conversations
among allies wherewith the audience of millions of people listening and
especially one particular important individual Vladimir Putin. This was not
very helpful. And it is it does seem that there's no clarity as far as um responses
to various different scenarios. For example, the concerns about the response of
the German side that has ruled out any sort of military assistance to Ukraine and
has also has not been willing to discuss the future of the north stream ii
project which is a guest pipeline from Russia and is a very important component
of the economic response. (Peter)
Read more: Russia-Ukraine tensions: inching towards war
Should Russia attack Ukraine? is Russia's biggest concern Is NATO's
expansion or is it just the fear of seeing a neighbor which is more vibrant
setting up a strong democracy that could further spread eastwards?
First of all, I would like to briefly comment on what my Ukrainian
colleague panelist said. I was surprised at saying by him that Russia is made aggression to Ukraine. That is not true actually because there was a
general vote in Crimea and the Crimeans actually gave their voice to the reunification
with Russia.
Getting straight to the point I would say that Russia is not
fearing Ukraine. There was an article written by President Vladimir Putin where he
said and wrote that Russia and Ukraine are just common people. That there was
a Ukrainian Russia somewhere back in the past. But regarding a question, the most concern of Russia is an enlargement of NATO and the putting the NATO missiles
such as medium-range missiles on Ukrainian territory. That's why Russia would
like to have written guarantees because written guarantees are legal documents.
(Vladimir)
Peter's argument:
It is an ironic situation where Vladimir Putin claims that NATO constitutes
an existential threat to Russia, but it's precisely his actions in the last
eight years or even longer that's created this insecurity in the region that
has prompted not only Ukrainians to aspire with greater and greater force to become
a member of NATO, but the long-standing neutral European powers such as Sweden
and Finland are all of a sudden talking about the potential accession to NATO.
NATO troops and an agreement between allies:
The second major demand by the Russians is withdrawing NATO troops.
back in 1997, this is before several countries in Eastern Europe were admitted. Is
this something that potentially could be debated between the US and its own allies
within NATO before coming back to the Russians with an answer?
No that is not something that the United States or NATO would do. Either
we have to first remember the history that Poland and baltic states--
Estonia Lithuania Bulgaria and Romania-- were either occupied by the soviet
union or had governments imposed on them by the soviet union and part of the
warsaw pact with the exception of Romania. They are now free and independent countries
again. They will refuse to be subjugated to Russia in any way in the future. It's
not for Russia to tell them whether and how to defend themselves and NATO likewise
will not allow an outside power such as Russia to dictate the way that it goes
about its preparations for defense in the case any member would be attacked. So
that is not on the table. The question is that this is a concern of Russia that NATO
could possibly put missiles into Ukraine. This is something where we had a previously
existing agreement, the INF agreement, and also concerns that the west
has about short-range nuclear forces that Russia possesses in its territory but very close to western territory. Here is the scope for negotiation and
agreement on not deploying those sorts of weapons or on locations where it
is acceptable for those to be deployed on a reciprocal mutual basis.
Question of sending military equipment to Ukraine:
We've seen some equipment delivered to the Ukrainians over the last few months particularly from Britain, for example, the next-generation light weapons the NLOs, and also the javelin from the Americans. But apart from that, the Germans are very reticent about the need to send German-made weapons into Ukraine. There are two scenarios Putin’s propaganda machinery can take the armament situation to claim that there is an encirclement happening and Ukraine is being used as a puppet, a territory to strike against Russia. Or as many including American military analysts and supporters of Ukraine have claimed Vladimir Putin understands only force and the sooner it's demonstrated the better. Therefore, America has already agreed to supply Ukraine with stinger missiles including by giving the Baltic states the green light to do that and it was during the Afghanistan war by the Soviets that the stinger missiles allowed the Mujahideen to eventually knock out the soviet power and force it to withdraw. This is a very complex scenario and it could go both ways. (Peter)
It is said that one of Russia's main concerns is using Ukraine and
areas in the eastern countries on the border to launch attacks against Russia. But
don't you see the potential for resuming talks on the intermediate brand nuclear
forces treaty that the US abandoned in 2019 and something that could send reassurances
to the Russians.
The potential actually resuming the talks on the treaty and that once the Ukrainian crisis will be diffused to some level, those talks on the resuming the agreement which was abandoned you're right some time ago they will start to take place. So this is the point where the United States and the Russian federation can make a good agreement. By good agreement, I mean that both sides will prolong this treaty-- will sign probably the contribution is a treaty and then from that point the diffusion. From that point, the relations between both powers will be getting better. (Vladimir)
Areas of convergence:
The US and NATO would be willing to discuss INF and SNF limitations
but on a reciprocal mutual basis and of course, it would require strict
verification. It was Russia that had violated the INF treaty previously. Thus, a
future agreement would require good verification provisions.
Breakup of the soviet union: one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies:
When the Russians say that the reason why they announced Crimea
and provided support for the secessionist is the need for the Russians to
protect the Russian-speaking communities there. Do you have any concerns that
the Russian in one way or another are trying to reshape the whole narrative
surrounding the independence of Ukraine back in the 90s and going back to
the notion of what happened in the 1990s? It was a mistake and therefore we need to
rewrite those chapters which could entail the Ukrainians coming under the fall
of the Russians once again?
Read more: Issue of Kazakhstan: the Birth of Soviet Union
Contrary to Russia's propaganda claims, the Russian language and Russian speakers were never under any physical harm threat and the Russian language wasn't threatened. This is completely concocted as a rationale for the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent instigation of the war in the Donbas. What we're seeing is happening in Ukraine and Belarus which has essentially become a protectorate of Russia and has essentially ceased to exist as a de facto independent state. What we're seeing in Kazakhstan where Russia has invoked its collective security treaty to restore order. It really matches what we heard Vladimir Putin say over the years that he considers the breakup of the soviet union as one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies of the 20th century. He misses the soviet union and Russia's ability to project power to what it calls its near abroad. Obviously, there will be a semblance of that that he will try to reunite as under Russia's umbrella. (Peter)
0 Comments