In 2014, brother nations (“bratskie narodi”) Russia and Ukraine, united by common cultures, mentalities, customs, traditions and closely related languages, became enemies. They have remained so for eight years now. The main reason behind this negative development has been the geopolitical game between the Russian Federation (RF) and the West.

The Moscow-organized referendum resulted overwhelmingly (95%) in favor of the union of the Crimean Peninsula with the RF. The Russian government considers the referendum’s result as a sufficient international law basis for the accession of the said region into the RF. However, the West dismissed this result as being rigged (or engineered) by the Kremlin. What are Russia’s security concerns though as they seem to be at the heart of the current crisis?

First, Moscow is concerned that the United States (under the guise of collective NATO defense) will eventually deploy troops (and possibly missiles) in Ukraine as military cooperation between the two has seen unprecedented growth since the regime change of 2014 in Kiev. (NB: Regime change has been a time-honored “tenet” of US foreign policy – we need not elaborate in the confines of this short article.)

In this respect, let us mention that Russia has kept Kaliningrad a semi-exclave, situated on the Baltic coast, bordered by Poland to the south and Lithuania to the north and east. Thus, this Russian strip of land is squeezed by two NATO members with the US stationed troops. Currently, approximately 4,500 US personnel are on rotation in Poland while Lithuania seeks permanent US military presence in the country (online report by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, February 9, 2022).

Second, without Crimea, the Black Sea, which connects European Russia to the rest of Europe, would become a vulnerable point for Moscow. In the case of the Baltic Sea region, Russia maintains a balance of power with its weapons in Kaliningrad, reducing vulnerability in its northwest. However, Russia would become vulnerable in its western and southwestern part: In the Black Sea the RF is surrounded by Georgia and Ukraine, which are both hostile, plus Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, all three NATO member-states. Moreover, it is well known that the latter, boasting the second strongest army in NATO, harbors neo-imperial ambitions of control over former Ottoman lands in the Middle East, the Caucasus as well the Turkic republics of Central Asia (Pan-Turanism).

The Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine also held a referendum. Unlike Crimea, as of 2014 they received the status of an unrecognized state, separate from Ukraine and Russia. However, the Ukrainian crisis did not end there. We are now witnessing the second most active phase of the crisis.

Russia is pursuing an open foreign policy, positioning itself as a friendly state, in order to improve its image in the eyes of the world community, as evidenced by various international programs and projects for young people and foreign students, international humanitarian assistance, as well as peacekeeping and anti-terrorist missions in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Given the above facts, it becomes clear that Russia wants to convince everybody that it has no reason to attack Ukraine, except for one – Ukraine’s NATO accession. Therefore, the troop buildup near Ukraine’s borders is an accompanying tool for negotiating security guarantees.
Ukraine itself seems not to be the question, but the negotiating terrain between Russia and the United States. Russia’s national interests appear not to be founded on the capture of Ukraine, but on the inadmissibility of NATO’s expansion to the east.

Such is clearly reflected in the proposals for security guarantees put forward to NATO and the United States: non-advancement of NATO to the east and non-deployment of weapons systems near the borders of Russia. Russia’s proposed non-expansion of NATO not only implies an exclusion of Ukraine and Georgia from NATO membership, but also a return to the 1997 membership, which means the exclusion from NATO of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia. Of course, the Kremlin understands that such a turning back of the clock is practically impossible. However, it is a frequent stroke of Russian (and not only) diplomacy by Russia to go for the maximum in order to secure the desired minimum.

The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO is a red line. At the same time, the Kremlin reckons that the US-NATO camp shares its unwillingness to enter into a direct confrontation. First, after the Iraq and Afghanistan debacle, fresh US foreign meddling in Ukraine could deal a serious blow to the current Biden administration’s domestic approval rate. Second, NATO has no legitimate reasons to provide military assistance to Ukraine. Third, an eruption of war will lead to sad consequences for the whole world.
For all the above reasons, it seems that Moscow’s proposals for security guarantees are a good enough compromise option for both sides.

Possible crisis outcome

A possible scenario would be the conclusion of an agreement on security guarantees, where the main emphasis would be placed on the non-deployment of medium-range and shorter-range missiles near the borders of Russia. Consequently, even if Ukraine joins NATO, missiles will not be placed on its territory. Of course, this does not form a new world order, but it will ensure regional security.

From Moscow’s perspective, subjugation or occupation of Ukraine is not the end. Prevention of NATO expansion is. Russia fears the deployment of troops and missiles near its borders. It is a red line in its foreign policy. The Ukrainian crisis is not at all about Ukraine. It is about the conflicting geopolitical interests of Russia and the United States in the former Soviet space. On the one hand Moscow attempts to form a multipolar system of international relations while on the other hand Washington favors steadfast adhesion to the unipolar system established at the end of the Cold War.

Last but not least, we should not forget the important role of China in providing political support to Russia. At the same time, however, Beijing aims at capturing the energy market in Europe, which Moscow stands to lose in case sanctions are imposed.

In actual verifiable conditions of civil war that Ukraine goes through at the moment any foreign financial assistance to the de facto authorities in Kiev translates as support in the fight against their political opponents. Such Western grants and/or loans will be used to purchase military equipment to be used as suppression tools of the opposition. This could lead to an uncontrolled spread of weapons, with a heightened risk that the conflagration infiltrates into the EU via Moldova, Romania and Poland. And will Ukraine be able to give back the credits granted to her at all? If, as a result of the civil war, the entire wealthy South-East of Ukraine is destroyed, where will the economic base be to generate income in order to return the loans? If the supporters of Federalism win in the forthcoming elections will they admit “old debts” to foreign borrowers? Allocating funds to wage a civil war is a sign of inefficient and utterly irresponsible management. In addition, the disbursement of financial assistance to Ukraine by the IMF diverts resources that could have been used for the solution of major socio-political and economic problems of the world.

Taking into account the numerous Russian and Ukrainian communities within EU member states, the civil war in Ukraine is bound to have a negative influence on their internal situation. Therefore, it is more wise for the European Union to promote the idea of seeking a political settlement in Ukraine rather than focusing on the business-project of the USA to support nationalists who came to power in Kiev.

As for sanctions against Russia, the US and the EU are trying to reach a common policy. However, a close analysis of international media shows that opinions on this issue are diverse. Many analysts conclude that new sanctions will not cause significant economic damage to Russia. On the contrary the European Union states will suffer mostly because they have closer economic ties than the US does with Moscow. Europe depends largely on Russia in the energy sphere. With the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine a barrage of calls from corporate managers came down on the high-ranking European officials with a demand not to take any steps that will jeopardize their business interests in Russia. Thus, the German businessmen insist on a diplomatic solution of the conflict and indicate the serious consequences of the sanctions firstly for the German economy. Italy, Greece and the Republic of Cyprus are also against toughening of sanctions, fearing dire consequences for their economies as well.

It is quite clear that of the two Western players involved in the Ukrainian crisis, Europe will suffer more. The US are the most active ally of those, who came to power by force of arms, and they, unlike their Western partners, stake out their main geostrategic goal: to get closer to Russia’s borders and to create a hot spot of instability there. Therefore, does Europe need the path that goes to the detriment of its interests and the welfare of their States? Does the EU need this blind devotion to Washington, which uses the EU to satisfy its own imperialist ambitions? We may remind ourselves of the top US policy-makers mindset with regard to Europe – it is not so long ago (March 2014) US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland referred to Europe in the most derogatory and undiplomatic terms using obscene language …

Besides it is necessary to realize that the Western sponsors of the Ukrainian nationalists will have to share with the local perpetrators responsibility for all committed crimes: violent overthrow of constitutional authorities in a sovereign state, unnecessary loss of human life, promotion of neo-fascist activity, creation of chaos, physical attacks, provocations, threats, spread of propaganda and misinformation. So, does Europe need all this? Does it want to share this responsibility with the US, who are ready to bring anyone to power, even the devil, if only not to lose their influence, as well as to get into the sphere of national interests of Russia? The answer is obvious, it’s time to wake up, follow common sense turning away from the wrong path. And let the US take on their own burden of responsibility and consequences of their gamble.