Could this war have been avoided?
The Russian invasion of Ukraine began on February 24, 2022. It has been going on for four years and peace is still not conclusively in sight even though the US is negotiating between the two countries to work out a peace deal. Despite the great loss in lives to both armies and the vast destruction of property and infrastructure in Ukraine, neither country has reached a stage when the need for the guns to stop has become so vital that they are willing to compromise for the sake of peace. Besides, Europe’s support to Ukraine is a major factor in its going on with the war and not willing to give up its territory for the sake of peace. On its part, Russia is unwilling to give up the areas in eastern Ukraine which it has amalgamated into its territory. Thus, while positive noises are being made on the status of the negotiations, the likelihood of a real positive development which will lead to a ceasefire has not occurred as yet.
Four years into the war it is also necessary to turn to a question which is now being seldom asked by security analysts: could this war have been avoided? While Russian President Vladimir Putin said, prior to the invasion, that Ukraine was the heart of old Russia thereby indicating that he was determined to regain the spiritual heartland of Russia, the real reason for the war was Putin’s sense of betrayal by Ukraine and the West.
This feeling stemmed from Russia’s claim that the West had committed not to expand NATO eastwards at the time of the unification of Germany. However, the West had disregarded this commitment and had continuously undertaken the eastward expansion of NATO. Putin had warned against this. Certainly he had given enough signals that he was simply unwilling to consider Ukraine joining NATO. The West asserted that it was Ukraine’s sovereign right to determine its future. The fact is that neither the West nor Russia and nor Ukraine displayed the statesmanship which would have diffused the situation.
This said, Russia has to be condemned for its invasion of Ukraine. As a P5 country which had special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security Russia betrayed the trust that the international community had placed in it. Of course Russia has not been the only P5 country which has been guilty of subverting global peace and security. The other four – the United States, Britain, France and China – have done so too since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945.
Russia’s initial military foray into Ukraine was to acquire territory in the central part of the country. However, it got blunted. Thereafter Russia focused on Ukraine’s eastern part where a considerable portion of the population speaks the Russian language. Here it succeeded in acquiring territory in the Donbass region, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russia has formally amalgamated these territories as its own. Along with Crimea these areas constitute around 20% of Ukraine’s landmass. Russia is demanding that Ukraine should cede these territories to it on a permanent basis. Naturally Ukraine is resisting this demand.
The European powers are most reluctant to agree to the Russian demand. They assert that a formalization of Russia’s territorial acquisitions through war will not only be a violation of Ukraine sovereignty but also erode a fundamental pillar of world order and the European security structure. The European security structure, though, got impaired with the Russian invasion and its succeeding to gain control of large chunks of Ukraine territory. Now a new security structure that will constrain Russian adventures in central Europe will have to be worked out.
President Trump is approaching the future with greater pragmatism than Europe. He is indicating that Ukraine cannot win the territories it has lost. This is true. In the past ten days or so Ukraine has recovered around 200 square kilometres of lost territory. This is laudable but it will not fundamentally alter the frontlines. It would therefore appear that any deal will have to give these territories to Russia on a de facto basis. As of now Putin is perhaps insisting that he should have all the areas he has amalgamated on a de jure basis. He is sticking to his point even though Russia has suffered around a million casualties and is suffering from sanctions. However, the will of the Russian people is holding firm. Russian nationalism has deep roots.
Trump knows as does Europe that while they can shore up Ukraine militarily to prevent Russia from trampling all over the country they cannot do more. Certainly because of Russia’s nuclear arsenal they have and will continue to proceed cautiously in giving Ukraine weapons which can do serious harm to Russian territories. This caution is all the more needed because Putin had warned in 2022 itself that he will not hesitate to use the ultimate weapon if he was forced too.
As military pressures on Russia have not and cannot break its will, Trump and the major European powers hope that by imposing more and more stringent sanctions on it they may move Putin to look to a more flexible position during the negotiations. It is this thought that has led to Trump insistence that India will not buy Russian oil. The fact is that while India may reduce its oil purchases from Russia it will not lead Putin to be more amenable to Trump’s coercion. Russian intransigence remains as long as Russia has China’s backing.
