Vladimir Putin is often considered to know how to play well even if he received bad cards. Former President Obama has disdainfully treated Russia as nothing more than an expanded gas station with an economy similar in size to Italy for example. On the other hand, there are those who attribute to Putin almost mystical abilities in influencing the prevailing discourse among the political elite in America, at least half of whom describe him as an almighty ruler in events around the world, one who can seemingly influence election results in distant lands. This is the kind of discourse that makes the Russian president’s opponents very sad.
But the plays we now see on the Ukrainian border are no longer a case of Russia playing well with bad cards. This time Russia discarded all the cards, turned the table over and pinned a gun to the player’s temple opposite, hoping he would fold and surrender. In fact, all of Russia’s actions on Ukrainian soil since 2014 have been those of a desperate power. Historically, Russia has always enjoyed great influence over neighboring Ukraine, without having to make a special effort. The Russians used the Crimean peninsula for decades as a naval base, and took advantage of its strategic location to advance Moscow’s interests in the Mediterranean and in front of Turkey.
While Ukraine has toyed with the idea of joining the EU in recent years, Russia has tried to strengthen its hold on it through billions of dollars in loans and low energy prices. There were definitely threats on the table, too. When the US and others responded to the Russian proposal by supporting the ouster of the Ukrainian president who agreed to it, Russia once again turned to violence.
Ukraine itself is a kind of hybrid state with very little experience as an independent nation. In its western part it is more Catholic and more inclined to Europe, especially in the area of the city of Lvov which traditionally belonged to Polish-Lithuanian culture. In its eastern and southern parts it has a more Russian character and the prevailing religion is Russian-Orthodox.
The worst-case scenario for Ukraine is one in which both Russia and Western European countries will decide to pursue their competing interests in Ukrainian territory, and will try to help one side of the country control and humiliate the other side. We got an early glimpse of this play back in 2014, and its only result was disaster and death.
If Ukraine were indeed an independent nation, it is possible that a determined Finnish-style foreign policy would have provided it with real achievements. Economic ties to the West were balanced with direct diplomacy aimed at avoiding becoming a political or security threat to Russia. Such a policy would inevitably mean staying out of the open door of NATO. As Henry Kissinger advised eight years ago, a policy of “balanced dissatisfaction” was perhaps the smartest thing for Ukraine. In fact, the ideal situation would be such that independence Ukrainian, like Finland, will allow Europe and Russia an opportunity to moderate and reconcile their relationship.
As of today, the Ukrainian people do not seem to be particularly hungry for an exclusive economic deal with Russia that has become poorer and more withdrawn in recent years. Ukrainians who have left the country in recent years have mostly chosen Poland as their destination, and for good reason: its economy is growing rapidly and yielding more opportunities.
But an ideal policy for Ukraine is not in sight. Russia’s threats and pressure to intervene in its neighbor’s internal affairs have sparked controversy within NATO. Croatia has already announced that it will not take part in Allied operations against Russia in Ukraine. On the one hand they have a deep pro-Russian sentiment, and on the other hand they lack significant military means. Countries like Croatia and Montenegro are unable to make a real contribution to NATO, other than deepening the controversy and conflicts within the Alliance.
But the biggest conflicts come from the powerful countries in the alliance. Germany, which is already suffering greatly from a sharp rise in energy prices, has signaled genuine hesitation about imposing sanctions on Russia in the event it invades Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron has suddenly decided, precisely at the height of the crisis in NATO ranks, to demand a rethinking of Europe’s security policy.
The situation at the moment is that Russia has turned the table and Putin is increasing the pressure on Ukraine. The only effective response from NATO and European countries should be an unequivocal clarification as to what the West is willing or unwilling to do on the issue of Ukraine in the short and medium term. Without such clarification, Ukraine will not actually be able to pursue sensible diplomatic policies in an effort to avoid disaster.
But instead, Putin’s desperate bet on Ukraine reveals that the West has lost all idea of what he really wants. Its leaders like to talk nicely about lofty ideals and freedom for all. But what about the steps that need to be taken to maintain it? Not really.
The column was first published on the National Review website. To read more articles by Michael Brendan Doherty – click here
Follow ‘Measure’ also on social networks:
