MOSCOW - BY ASIA INSIDER - Oct 17,2023

The 2004 Orange Revolution, marked by a series of protests in Kiev, was a significant event that led to the rise of a pro-Western government in Ukraine. This event is regarded as the first modern episode that eventually culminated in the ongoing Ukraine War. The West hailed this event as a victory for liberal democracy and a key milestone in the expansion of both NATO and the EU towards the East. However, this development was not well-received by the Kremlin, which had been seeking accommodation with the West until then. Moscow had made diplomatic concessions and even supported the American military intervention in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, these gestures were interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness, as Russia was viewed as a declining power that could be ignored. Therefore, the shockwaves of the Orange Revolution significantly impacted Moscow's foreign policy.

 

In 2004, a major shift occurred in the mindset of Vladimir Putin and his associates, many of whom were former KGB members. The Orange Revolution was viewed by them as a US-backed regime change operation aimed at isolating Russia. While NATO may not have had immediate plans for military conquest, Moscow believed that the organization could pose a threat in the future.

They remained convinced that the theories of Sir Halford Mackinder, which emphasized the need for sea powers to control crucial areas in the Eurasian heartland, remained relevant even after the end of the Cold War. Putin and his entourage saw the Orange Revolution as a wake-up call, prompting them to adopt a more assertive foreign policy that aimed to counterbalance Western influence.

 

In 2007, President Putin delivered a speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, in which he criticized the neoconservative agenda to establish a unipolar world. Putin specifically highlighted NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe as a source of instability that could increase the risk of confrontation, hamper mutual understanding, and fuel military tensions. While these warnings were largely dismissed in the West, they now appear prophetic in hindsight.

A few Western experts, including George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Kenneth Waltz, and John Mearsheimer, shared similar concerns about the dangers of isolating Russia. They believed that a strong backlash from Russia was inevitable, given the country's historical and strategic interests. However, their views were not widely accepted at the time, and the prevailing belief in the West was that Russia was a declining power that could be safely disregarded.

 

The Russians believed that Ukraine was crucial to their strategic interests. Without Ukraine under their influence, Russia would be exposed and vulnerable to conventional and nuclear attacks, and their ambitions to reassert themselves as an imperial power would be impeded. As a result, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and the EU was seen as a direct threat to Russia's security and status. Moscow responded by using every means at their disposal to install a pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine, including mobilizing political proxies and weaponizing natural gas supplies.

They also challenged the US foreign policy agenda in various regions to gain leverage and demonstrate their determination. Although the Russians were initially successful in installing Viktor Yanukovych as Ukraine's leader, the 2014 Euromaidan movement overthrew his government and replaced it with a pro-Western regime. This setback was a significant blow to the Kremlin, and they believed that the US was determined to undermine their position. As a result, Moscow's strategy has evolved in three phases to adapt to changing circumstances.

 

Following Euromaidan, Russia embarked on a hybrid warfare campaign against Ukraine. This campaign utilized both overt and covert methods to achieve its objectives. The primary goal was to compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, prevent its absorption by Western structures, and remind Kiev of Russia's interests. The annexation of Crimea and the provision of support to pro-Russian separatist militias in the Donbass region were examples of Russia's use of force.

Other methods included economic pressure, military posturing, religious influence, propaganda dissemination, mobilization of political assets, and active measures such as agitation and covert attempts to instigate a coup. This strategy also underpinned Russia's infrastructure projects to supply natural gas to European nations through pipelines that bypass Ukraine. Despite these efforts, Ukraine remained committed to joining NATO, and Russia's strategy failed to achieve a favorable change in the Ukrainian government.

 

The Russian military buildup near the Ukrainian border in 2021 was indeed a cause for concern and raised tensions between Russia and Ukraine, as well as with the West. While the exact motives behind the move remain unclear, it is possible that it was intended to serve as a warning or an attempt to pressure Ukraine and the West into making concessions.

The demands issued by Moscow, as mentioned, were quite extensive and far-reaching, and some of them are unlikely to be met by the West, such as the request to halt NATO expansion and remove military infrastructure from Eastern Europe. The situation remains volatile and unresolved, and it is unclear how it will develop in the future.

It is important to note that while the Russians may have felt justified in their demands and actions, the use of force is always a risky and costly option. Invading Ukraine would not only carry significant geopolitical and military risks, but also economic and diplomatic consequences.

It could lead to a prolonged conflict with uncertain outcomes, and would likely result in a significant deterioration of Russia's relations with the West, including economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Additionally, any military action could result in significant human suffering and loss of life on both sides, further complicating the situation.

As for the idea of "walking a dangerous path" to achieve important goals, it is worth noting that statecraft also involves considering the long-term consequences of one's actions and the potential risks and benefits of different approaches. While force may be an option in certain situations, it should not be used recklessly or without careful consideration of the costs and risks involved. Ultimately, the most effective approach to achieving one's goals often involves a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military tools, used in a way that minimizes risks and maximizes benefits for all parties involved.

 

The Russian strategy appears to be to create a frozen conflict that will keep Ukraine destabilized and prevent it from ever achieving its aspirations to join the West. In this sense, the invasion of Ukraine should be seen as part of a broader challenge to the rules-based international order, especially as the Kremlin seeks to advance its geopolitical interests in the face of an increasingly assertive West.

This aggression has elicited a strong response from the international community, which has imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia and has also pledged military aid to Ukraine. However, the situation remains volatile, and it is unclear how the conflict will play out in the months and years to come. What is clear is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has marked a turning point in European history and has brought the specter of great power conflict back to the forefront of global affairs.

 

While historical examples can be informative, it is important to note that each situation is unique and must be evaluated on its own terms. Drawing parallels between the Ukraine War and other historical conflicts can be useful for understanding some aspects of the conflict, but it is also important to recognize the distinct context, actors, and motivations at play in the current situation. Additionally, it is crucial to approach historical analogies with caution, as they can oversimplify complex issues and obscure important differences that may be relevant to understanding contemporary events. Ultimately, a nuanced and multifaceted approach is necessary for understanding the causes and consequences of the Ukraine War.

 

Historical precedents can help shed light on contemporary events and provide a better understanding of current geopolitical strategies. The examples you provide illustrate the use of military force as a means of achieving long-term political objectives, even at the cost of widespread destruction and loss of life. In the case of Carthage and Khwarezm, the goal was total annihilation, whereas in the case of Richelieu and Morgenthau, the objective was to weaken the enemy and reshape their society to better suit the interests of the victorious power. The parallels between these historical events and the current situation in Ukraine suggest that Russia may be pursuing a similar strategy of dismantling the Ukrainian state and weakening its society in order to establish greater influence and control over the region.

It is important to note, however, that while the Russian strategy in Ukraine may serve these purposes, it also carries significant risks and potential costs. The invasion has sparked international condemnation and led to economic sanctions against Russia, causing significant harm to its economy. It has also resulted in a significant loss of life and displacement of civilians in Ukraine. Additionally, it has strained Russia's relations with other countries, particularly in Europe, and has weakened its international standing. Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the potential benefits of the invasion will outweigh its costs for Russia in the long term.

It is difficult to predict with certainty what Russia's ultimate goals are in Ukraine, and how far they are willing to go to achieve them. However, it is clear that Russia's actions in Ukraine are driven by a combination of strategic, political, and national security interests.

The possibility of partition or annexation of Ukrainian territory cannot be ruled out, particularly in the Donbas region. In addition, the establishment of a new state similar to Kosovo, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia cannot be entirely dismissed as a possibility. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that any such actions would likely have significant consequences for the region and the international community as a whole.

 

It is important to note that the scenarios presented in the previous paragraphs are speculative and hypothetical, and it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine. The situation is highly complex and fluid, and many factors can influence the course of events. Moreover, any attempt to redraw borders or change the territorial status quo through military force is likely to have significant repercussions, both regionally and internationally, and could potentially lead to further escalation and instability. Ultimately, a peaceful and negotiated solution to the conflict remains the best outcome for all parties involved.

 

It is important to note that such a scenario of Russia remaking Ukraine in its own image would have significant consequences not only for Ukraine but also for the wider European security architecture. The annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine have already severely undermined the post-Cold War order in Europe, and a further partition of Ukraine would only worsen the situation. It would also likely lead to a further deterioration of relations between Russia and the West, with potential economic and political consequences.

Additionally, it is uncertain whether China would be willing to play such a significant role in the remaking of Ukraine, given its own complex relations with Russia and the West. While the Belt and Road Initiative presents opportunities for China, it is also aware of the risks and potential backlash associated with getting too involved in sensitive geopolitical issues.

 

War is always a risky endeavor, and even the most well-planned strategies can go awry due to unforeseen events, changing circumstances, and unexpected developments. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine, there are many variables at play, including the political, economic, military, and social dimensions of the conflict.

Moreover, the involvement of multiple actors with diverging interests and goals, such as Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US, makes the situation even more complex and unpredictable. In this context, the risk of unintended consequences, miscalculations, and accidental incidents cannot be underestimated. Therefore, it is crucial for all parties involved to exercise restraint, engage in dialogue, and seek peaceful solutions to the conflict.

 

It is important to note that the situation in Ukraine is not just a matter of two parties – Russia and the US/UK – vying for influence. Ukraine is a sovereign state with its own interests and aspirations, and the Ukrainian people have a right to determine their own future.

The conflict in Ukraine is primarily about the future of Ukraine itself, and not just a proxy war between the US/UK and Russia. While it is true that the US and UK have provided support to Ukraine, this support is not simply about undermining Russia's geopolitical projection.

Rather, it is about supporting a democratic and independent Ukraine that is free to choose its own path and alliances. Additionally, it is worth noting that Ukraine's stability and security is important not just for the US and UK, but for the broader region and for Europe as a whole. The conflict in Ukraine has implications beyond Ukraine's borders, and the resolution of the conflict will require the engagement and cooperation of all parties involved.

 

Indeed, a full-scale defeat in Ukraine could have unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences for Russia and the world. The collapse of Russia's military reputation and loss of territory could embolden opposition forces within the country, potentially leading to political instability and infighting.

In addition, as you noted, the rise of revanchist sentiments among Russians could fuel further aggression towards neighboring countries and lead to a dangerous cycle of conflict. Furthermore, the potential balkanization of Russia could create a power vacuum that could be exploited by various actors, including extremist groups and foreign powers, potentially leading to further destabilization and conflict.

Moreover, the fact that Russia possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal adds an additional layer of complexity and danger to any scenario involving a significant defeat or collapse of the Russian state.

The potential for nuclear weapons to fall into the wrong hands or for a breakdown in command and control structures is a major concern for global security. Therefore, it is in the interest of all parties involved to find a peaceful and negotiated solution to the conflict in Ukraine that addresses the legitimate concerns and interests of all sides.

It is important to note that reaching a negotiated settlement in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a complex and difficult task, as it requires a genuine willingness from both sides to compromise and find common ground. Furthermore, any settlement would need to address not only the military aspects of the conflict, but also the political, economic, and social issues that underlie it. There are also other regional and global powers involved, such as the European Union and China, whose interests and concerns would need to be taken into account.

Despite the challenges, there have been some efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. For example, the Minsk agreements of 2015, which were brokered by France and Germany, aimed to establish a ceasefire and a political framework for resolving the conflict. However, the implementation of the agreements has been slow and incomplete, and the ceasefire has been repeatedly violated.

 

Ultimately, finding a negotiated settlement to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will require political will and leadership from both sides, as well as the support of the international community. It will require a willingness to overcome mistrust, to engage in constructive dialogue, and to make difficult compromises.