Avoiding collision course over Ukraine

By dialling down their war rhetoric over Ukraine, Washington and Moscow have agreed to give diplomacy a chance following Geneva talks between American Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavoraov.

The statements issued by Washington and Moscow described the talks as “frank”, “constructive”, and “positive” and ruled out the use of force by Moscow to resolve the issue of NATO and European “Eastward” expansion.

Most concretely, Washington has promised to provide written assurances to Moscow that United States and its NATO allies will not seek to make Ukraine and Georgia members of the NATO alliance.

The backdrop to prevailing tensions over Ukraine goes back to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 that provoked a strong Western reaction including imposition of economic sanctions. NATO countries perceived the forceful occupation of Crimea as a prelude to Moscow’s desire to fully absorb Ukraine into its sphere of influence and to prevent Kiev becoming part of NATO’s drive to expand its frontiers eastwards.

It is worth recalling that in 1994 when Washington was contemplating NATO‘s eastward expansion, it had verbally assured Moscow that this expansion would exclude Ukraine that was deemed by Moscow to be part of its vital interests.

It is also relevant to recall that when Nazi Germany attacked Russia under operation Barbarossa in July 1941, it had launched its blitzkrieg through Ukraine. Since that time, Ukraine has been viewed as integral part of the territorial defense of Russia.

After the breakup of Soviet Union in August 1991 and its replacement by Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Moscow ensured that this new arrangement would hold and Ukraine would remain integral to its defence perimeter.

However, sensing Moscow’s weakness, and eager to institute liberal international order in Eastern Europe, United States and its European allies began to push for a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West.

John Mearsheimer has described this Western strategy as “liberal delusion” which entailed lending support to pro-democracy movement in Ukraine and the Orange Revolution in 2004.

Moscow reacted sharply to this development by “making it abundantly clear that it would not standby while their strategically important neighbour turned into a Western bastion.”

The result was Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and the occupation of key government buildings in the country’s east by the pro-Russian separatists. Russia also deployed more than 30,000-armed personnel to Crimea. Russia’s military forces in Crimea include ground, artillery, coastal defence, air defence, and fighter units. Additionally, Russia increased the size and capability of its Black Sea Fleet, headquartered in Sevastopol. Much of the international community condemned Russia’s occupation of Crimea as a violation of international law and of Russia’s own international commitments.

Many consider it to be a violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia, together with the United States and the United Kingdom, reaffirmed its commitment “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine,” as well as the “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.”

Since 2014, the U.N. General Assembly has voted several times, most recently in 2020, to affirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity, condemn the “temporary occupation” of Crimea, and reaffirm non-recognition of its annexation by Russia.

In 2020, Moscow deployed over 100,000 of its troops along the border with Ukraine generating fears of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow described this deployment as a military exercise and said that it did not harbour any aggressive designs against Ukraine. The Biden administration warned Moscow that it would have to pay a very heavy price if it violated Kiev’s sovereignty. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy sought Washington’s military help against possible use of force by Russia.

Alarmed by Russia’s military build-up along Ukraine’s border, President Biden asked his Secretary of State to meet his Russian counterpart Seregey Lavrov to defuse the tensions between Moscow and Ukraine.

The meeting took place on January 21 in Geneva. Even though both sides described their talks as “frank, and honest” there was no agreement on the fundamental issue of Ukraine’s quest for autonomy and its fervent desire to joint NATO.

Russian President Putin has refused to withdraw its military forces on the border with Ukraine. The British military intelligence in its latest report has suggested that Moscow’s military build-up is aimed at the future invasion of Ukraine depending upon how the NATO countries would react to Moscow’s military deployment.

None of the NATO countries are really interested in offering military help to the besieged Kiev regime. Immediately after the Geneva talks, Mr. Blinken told reporters, “he had conveyed the position of the United States and our European allies and partners that we stand firmly with Ukraine in support of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We’ve been clear: If any Russian military forces move across Ukraine’s border, that’s a renewed invasion. It will be met with swift, severe, and a united response from the United States and our partners and allies.”

In his interview, Blinken also made a point on how the West looks at the Russian strategy: “We also know from experience that Russia has an extensive playbook of aggression short of military action, including cyber-attacks, paramilitary tactics, and other means of advancing their interests aggressively without overtly using military action. Those types of Russian aggression will also be met with a decisive, calibrated, and again, united response.”

Reacting to Blinken’s statement, Russian news agency, Tass, referring to a Foreign Ministry note, stated on January 22 that, “It was made clear to Antony Blinken that further ignoring Russia’s legal concerns, first of all, those linked with the United States and its NATO allies’ advance in Ukraine amid the large-scale deployment of the alliance’s forces and weapons near our border, will have the most serious consequences…It can be avoided if Washington positively responds to our draft agreements on security guarantees. We expect to receive the American side’s written article-by-article response next week.”

The Geneva talks might have defused the tensions over Ukraine momentarily, but they have not meaningfully addressed the taproot of the problem: reconciling Russia’s security interests with NATO’s efforts to absorb Ukraine into its orbit.

A lot would depend on the answers that Washington is willing to provide to Moscow to keep the status quo.

The writer is a political scientist and defence analyst.