On February 24, Russia launched a military invasion of Ukraine, quickly becoming known as the largest military attack in Europe since World War II. While the news of the invasion definitely took the world by storm, it shouldn’t come as a shock. It was a quick escalation to the conflict that had been brewing in the region since 2014, the year Russia annexed Crimea. However, the two countries already had a history of fluctuating between periods of strong and weak relations dating back to the 90s.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 to create collective protection against the Soviet Union, which was known for infiltrating newly-liberated countries and instilling communism in them. At the time, the Cold War was just beginning between the US and the Soviet Union, while most of Western Europe was still recovering from the effects of World War II. Remembering this, it makes sense why the original members founded the alliance. Nonetheless, NATO can now be seen as problematic in this sense; a group of Western nations collectively deciding to fight Russia if any one of them is threatened, as per Article 5 of their agreement. It promotes a Western idea of “Russophobia”. This also explains why Putin may feel that Russia is a victim in this scenario and not the aggressor. The presence of NATO in proximity to Russia, and the possibility of Ukraine joining the alliance, can be seen as threatening to the country— but it doesn’t justify a full-scale invasion.
At this point, the conflict in Ukraine cannot yet be seen as a proxy war. Many say that the US provoked this invasion by asking Ukraine to join NATO, pushing Russia against a wall, and limiting its options. While the United States’ interventionist-style foreign policy has done a lot more harm than good over the years, claiming that they are using NATO to push their liberal agenda is a bit of a stretch. No one forced Ukraine to apply to join NATO. They first applied for membership in 2008 but withdrew after the 2010 election of the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych. This, along with Yanukovych’s refusal to sign an EU agreement, led to unrest across the nation.
Since the invasion, Ukraine has been propelled into the global spotlight. As of March 6, the United Nations estimates that over 1.3 million people have fled the country. Many neighboring nations such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova have opened their borders to refugees, potentially posing a threat to Russia. That is because if Putin’s main goal with the invasion of Ukraine was to stop them from trying to assimilate into the West — aside from his belief that Ukraine and Russia have always and will always be one — EU nations opening their borders to Ukrainians could potentially make it easier for Ukraine to officially join the EU later on.
Politics and historical precedence aside, nothing can justify the massacre that Putin is trying to pull off by invading Ukraine. His concerns regarding Ukraine’s attempted Westernization could have easily been brought up by meeting with President Zelensky but instead, he chose a violent, anachronistic approach. Similarly, NATO’s existence as an anti-Russian military alliance is also anachronistic, and yet neither NATO nor Russia can acknowledge that it’s the 21st century and we don’t need to bomb orphanages and civilians to make a point anymore. While you can be neutral in terms of international relations, there should be no neutral standpoint when it comes to human rights.
Comentários