 |
| Credit: Northern University |
Opinion by Pavel Felgenhauer, Matthew Bryza, and Glenn Diesen
US and Russian leaders talk, but no
progress is made on Ukraine. Is diplomacy coming to an end?
The latest diplomatic effort
between the United States and Russia to resolve tensions over Ukraine has
apparently failed. President Putin and Biden exchanged warnings and concerns
over the phone, but nothing was achieved. Meanwhile, military activities are underway on both
sides. Moscow is gathering troops in Russia and Belarus near the Ukrainian
border. The gathering has raised fears that an attack is imminent. Ukraine has
Western support. Its largest ally, the United States, is sending $200 million
in military aid, including armored missiles and ammunition. The French
presidency says Russia has not given any indication of an attack on Ukraine,
following talks between French and Russian presidents. Emmanuel Macron spoke on
the phone again with Vladimir Putin after a visit to Moscow last week. Putin
told Macron that NATO members had failed to respond to Russia's security
demands. Macron is also in contact with German Chancellor, Olaf Schultz, and
Ukrainian President, Vladimir Zeninsky, to promote stability in Europe. More
countries are urging their citizens in Ukraine to leave immediately.
Does the result of Biden-Putin's
latest phone call suggest that diplomacy may be coming to an end?
Apparently, there was no serious
progress. There were definitely several phone calls. Secretary Blinken was also
talking to Lavrov and US Secretary of Defense, Shoygu. In addition, General Gerasimov, the Chief of General Staff, spoke with General Milley. So there is a
flurry of phone calls involving the French President and the British. No major
developments are taking place yet, but of course, it is better to talk than not
to talk, but the situation is getting very tense and worse and the only good
news is that somehow a solution can be found in a week or two because the
current state of extreme readiness cannot continue indefinitely.
I would say that the state of
readiness of the Russian army cannot continue indefinitely. They will have to
step down or go into action. Military equipment has moved long distances from
the Far East to the Polish border. From the Far East to the Mediterranean. From
the North Sea again to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. So these ships
will have to go back and the armies will have to go back. Everyone will have to
step down in several weeks. Therefore, such a decision should come technically
much earlier.
Something has got to happen, but
apparently not on the diplomatic front. Was Biden-Putin's phone call perhaps
one of the last shots of diplomacy?
It depends on how you view
diplomacy, that is to say because war is a continuation of politics in other
ways. We must always keep in mind that the instigator of the conference, Putin,
is politically motivated. So its political goals, as we can now clearly see,
are to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in order to destabilize it, but in a
larger sense, to push back NATO's influence in Eastern Europe and to restore a
sense of Russian greatness in Europe. So those are political goals, and
President Putin has chosen to use military force and the threat of a full-scale
attack to achieve those goals. Diplomacy is taking place because President
Putin has not yet chosen to use the vast capabilities he has deployed. Hence, it
suggests that there is diplomacy checking aggressive attitude by the leaders. It has
so far prevented President Putin from invading Ukraine again. Diplomacy is
successful because NATO maintains a united front and says another attack would
be costly and painful which has paused President Putin. If there were no united
front like the Obama administration of NATO. If there was no clear indication
of the heavy costs of the invasion and attack on Donbas, we would have
already seen troops from Russia invading Ukraine.
Is the united front by the United States and its allies preventing the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
This is like the summer of 1914 before the war started, there were a lot of diplomacy and phone calls and it can be said that phone calls did stop the war, but in reality, it did not happen. That is why we are saying that before we can really talk about the success of diplomacy, we must see a real step down of forces. What will happen in the next few weeks depends on whether NATO is able to maintain this united position and solidarity in demonstrating how high the costs could be of a re-invasion. In recent days, it has become clear that many of America's European allies are saying they are not in favor of tough economic sanctions. It is indicated from their stress on the rapid withdrawal of Russia from the international SWIFT system—an Electronic payment system. President Putin sees this as a sign that he can increase pressure and overcome fears that Germany and France and other major NATO members are fighting another war in Europe. President Putin is really effective in using the threat of force to intimidate America's European allies.
Minsk agreements failed to halt the conflict
It is clear from these conversations that something
has been achieved. For Russia, once again, the main goal is twofold: First, to
resolve Ukraine's internal crisis, which means it must put pressure on the West
to push Ukraine to abide by the Minsk agreements. Kyiv promised once again
that she would engage with the ombudsman and he was given some autonomy but The
United States has not pressured Ukraine to abide by the Minsk agreements rather is
supplying weapons that could enable Kyiv to retake the region by force. This
is one of the things that disturbs Russia. The second is at the regional level,
which is pan-European security. During the 1990s, all the
OSCE partners agreed on the principle of indivisible security. It meant that one
side should not increase or secure it at the expense of the other, but in those
days we could ignore it because Russia was weak. While now it is clear that
Russia is no longer weak and it's demanding very
clear security guarantees that effectively US and NATO abides by the
agreements.
Question of the unity of NATO:
As far as the unity of NATO is concerned, it can be a positive thing because many continental
Europeans are urging the Russians that maybe they can reach an agreement. They may put
pressure on Ukraine to abide by this agreement. Maybe they can make a
pan-European security deal and that is what is stopping the war from happening
because obviously, Russia has much to lose from the attack. It does not want to
use force, but it has red lines. At the moment, France and Germany are neither
advancing nor following the American line on it. This is actually a preventing
war.
These developments make us think about 1962, and this is certainly not the first time we have seen the United States in a position to persuade Russia to withdraw in a military confrontation. At the height of the Cold War, during the Cuban Missile, President John F. Kennedy, when his advisers urged him to invade Cuba after the discovery of Soviet nuclear missile installations, rejected. At the start of the 13-day standoff, Kennedy ordered a Cuban naval blockade to stop Soviet aid and called on Moscow to disarm. Kennedy then warned Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, of the dangers of war. Its people faced the possibility of airstrikes to destroy the sites followed by an invasion that could lead to the death of thousands of people. At a time when war seemed inevitable, Kennedy's choice of diplomatic pressure over military action ultimately brought the two sides together to save both countries and the rest of the world from a full-blown nuclear war. (Pavel)
Read
more: Russia-Ukraine tensions: inching towards war
But why is it so difficult for the two sides to
make such an agreement this time around when it makes sense for them to
withdraw their forces from areas close to each other's borders?
It must be kept in mind that in the past, this
too did not happen in a fortnight. It was an act of intimidation and
counter-intimidation, and in the end, the parties decided to step down. Another similar crisis occurred during
the end of the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. There were only
hours left to fight Israel or before a large number of Russian planes had to
land in Egypt with nuclear weapons. The Americans raised the level of DEFCON
and decided to send some 82 Division airborne,
now stationed in Poland, to be deployed in Israel to fight the Russians.
Again Kissinger had this shuttle diplomacy that secured more or less an
agreement that held the situation for long like in the Cuban crisis. There was an
agreement that actually stood there for decades after it was settled. This is
what we should look for now, not just as a reduction in some sort of strategy
for several weeks or months, but for an agreement that will actually prevent
this particular crisis from recreating translating into a full blown war. You need someone who is working on an agreement that should be effective shuttle diplomacy.
President Macron tried to do that. But he is not well equipped for this because
France cannot put pressure on anyone, not even Ukraine, to do what Ukraine does
not want to do. It cannot put pressure on Russia and the United States.
Today’s world is perhaps a different place than
the 1962 or Arab-Israeli conflict where NATO is not as united as it once was.
Besides, Russia is probably not as strong as it was during the Cold War era. Is
there a lack of incentive for both sides to reach an immediate solution because
of this situation?
Russia is obviously much weaker now than the
Soviet Union, but it also means that Russia's threat in Europe is not as severe
as it used to be. So the idea that Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union or
invade Western Europe is misleading and will probably escalate the conflict. It can be understood by looking at the military spending of the Europeans. They do not
spend so much on weapons because they do not consider Russia a major threat.
Moreover, there is now more sympathy for Russia's view that it certainly has a
right to security. If they are denied protection, they will have to respond in
a way that harms the security of Europeans. (Diesen)
The point made earlier was that during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, President Kennedy had decided not to use force, in fact, it is
quite inappropriate here. Now, it is Vladimir Putin who is threatening to use
force. He is threatening to kill tens of thousands of people based on a
misinterpretation - a lie about NATO threatening Russia. How is NATO
threatening Russia in this crisis? When the United States, as Biden has said,
if Putin invades Ukraine again, we will respond with economic sanctions, not
with a single soldier on the ground. How is that the
threat to use force?
Couldn't Russia see things from the point of
view that the United States saw in 1962? And by considering Ukraine's accession
to NATO, Russia may think forces would be much closer to Russia's heartland?
Certainly not, because Russia has already
agreed not to use military force against any European or neighboring member
state, not only in the final Helsinki Act of 1975 but also in subsequent
agreements. Gathering 130,000 troops on three sides of an OECD member state is
a clear violation of the 1975 promise that later appeared in many of Russia's
other international commitments. Not to mention the 1994 Budapest Memorandum
when Russia promised to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity if it gave up
its nuclear weapons. President Putin knows that Russia has a defense
alliance. NATO has no plans, no ideology, to attack Russian forces anywhere
outside its NATO space. So this is a concord. These are the points made by the
Russian Kremlin that NATO is violating the international agreements which
Russia is violating itself and that there is a danger of using force against
Russia. NATO is threatening to use force to defend itself not to attack Russia on Russian territory. (Bryza)
Readjusting balance of power:
That balance of power is different today. This is an adjustment because the unipolar order has already expired. Attempts are being made to adjust this multipolar system. The transition has not been smooth, and it illustrates many of the steps that the United States has taken are aimed at maintaining its hegemonic.position that she enjoyed since the end of the cold war.
Read more: Power comparison of the US and China
Democracy, people, and war:
Looking at the historical perspective, for example, during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, Kennedy kept it a secret from the
American people. The idea that compromise is seen as a weakness or appeasement
as we hear every time someone suggests a compromise with Russia. This is very
frustrating, but now more countries, especially Germany and France, are
beginning to realize that some compromise is needed to avoid catastrophe because
once again Russia sees it as a red line from which they cannot move. Thus, we have
to change our mindset because we have had this order for the last 30 years
where the West only gives orders and nothing else. (Diesen)
Pavel Felgenhauer, a defense and military analyst and a columnist at Novia gazette
Subscribe to our website and allow
notifications for more in-depth articles.
0 Comments