Russian-Ukraine: How European Statesmen Denied History and Allowed the United States to Encourage NATO lure Ukraine to its Demise? By Peter AWANRIN
Under International Law, Russia may not have the right to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO. Then again, Law is not the ultimate determinant of the conducts of states in International politics. Rather, politics among nations is determined by the powers of the players involved, especially when such has to do with the world stage. So is the saying in international relations: What Sovereignty makes equal, Power makes unequal. Sovereignty may allow a state its way within its territory, but it is the power such state possesses that would enable it take certain actions involving/affecting other countries. Therefore, International Law may grant states sovereignty, but a foolish state may lose it through carelessness. R.I.P. Ukraine.
Introduction
Developments since 2020 have been even more hilarious than appalling. It would appear as though the World has started thinking in reverse order. When I say the World, I mean world governments, not particularly its citizens. It is possible to assert that, at no period in the entire history of the World has humankind been cursed with this crop of leaders. With a few exceptions, they appear to be very foolish. So what is the crisis in Ukraine all about? The answer to this is straightforward.
As aptly stated by Col Douglas McGregor, Former Senior Adviser to U.S. Secretary of Defence: The core issue for the Russians is a very straightforward one. They don’t want any foreign forces or missiles from the United States stationed on Ukrainian soil! And that’s why they do not want Ukraine to become a member of NATO.
But wait a minute; how on earth would NATO conceive of the idea of extending its membership to UKRAINE? I mean, Russia may have allowed its security to be compromised by allowing other states around it to become members of the European Union and NATO. Still, we know you do not just continue to push a goat to the wall. It will fight back, and Russia has started fighting back, and it may not stop with the occupation of Ukraine. So Russia did not need to refuse Ukraine to openly become a member of NATO.
The issue need not have come up in the first place if European politicians have any sense of history. I mean, ignore history, but it is always there, looking at you, laughing at you, of course, through to your downfall. We should rather quip: Is it not easier to make Moscow a member of NATO before Ukraine! But as they say, pride goes just before the fall. Again, Russia has been provoked, taking up its element as a world power, but as an aggressive one this time. Europe will have to cope.
What are the responses from those that have pushed Ukraine to its untimely death: We shall place sanctions on Russia! Sanction on Russia? Honestly, I thought we had heard the dumbest words from these world leaders since the Covid-19 and vaccine mandates? How can you deter a country like Russia with sanctions when, in fact, several European states rely on Russia for their energy needs? But this question is secondary. The main question is: Why should Ukraine become a member of NATO, a military alliance poised to conquer Russia? I mean, Ukraine can have unprotected intercourse with any state, flirt with the European Union as it wishes, but becoming a member of NATO, with the inevitable outcome of allowing the Alliance to place military installations and bases all over Ukraine, all pointing to Russia? Haba; enyin guys, kilose yin? I have always known that only humans can have Dutch courage due to excessive alcohol intake; I never knew that states and international organisations could still indulge this much! But wait a minute! How is this invasion of Ukraine by Russia a problem for NATO? Is Ukraine already a member of NATO? I mean, I thought NATO was a collective security arrangement against perceived Russian aggression? Again, how come NATO is still in existence over three decades after the end of the Cold War? Let us leave these issues for now and look at the nature of the crisis that is brewing in Europe [not just between Ukraine and Russia; it will soon eclipse the whole of Europe].
The Ukraine – Russian Crisis
I must state that I disregard those who worship International Law without regard to the historical and political context of issues or those blockheads who believe everything their governments say. These persons have failed, as always, to realise that in international relations, the conducts of states are determined by the power at their disposal, and not concerning Law, and not particularly International Law. Even worse, these persons fail to see that the raison d’état of anything in existence is for its existence to continue, and where possible, perpetually.
The state is that entity that must exist at all costs, even if this means using a nuclear weapon on another state! Israel was about to unleash nukes in 1973 when the United States continued rationalising supplying its military materiel even though Syria and Egypt were seriously assaulting Israel. I may sound amoral, but I am sure we know that morality has no place in the need to survive. You may wish to check how some of the early American settlers survived the ‘Starving Time’ of the winter of 1609/1610 or refer to the hypothetical case of the Spelucean Explorers. I must also quickly point to this salient fact that International Law is expected to protect states, big or small. It should not be for the small alone. In fact, this is the antithesis law, being made for the weak and always leaning towards the strong.
What good is International Law if it does not respect the right of Russia to survive? The point I am driving at is simple: Is it possible to talk about Ukraine’s Sovereignty without regard for the right of the Russian Federation to exist? Yes, I expect the hypos of International Law to miss/overlook this critical point. It is possible that these low-thinking individuals also do not need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities! Or see the reason why the nuclear club has not been allowed to expand much! Please remind these worshippers of International Relations that some threats are labelled existential because they could end the existence of the perceiving entity! They cannot be allowed to exist or manifest. I will make an effort to remind us of the Cuban Missile Crisis at some point, which is almost the same as what is happening at the moment. We may then see that the difference is that Russia now wants guarantees for her security, and NATO & others do not see the need for this! Let us look at NATO and Russia.
NATO and Russia since 1954
Until its present form, international relations have been more of power politics. It is essentially more of power Politik than politics of equals disguised as Sovereignty. While the idea of Sovereignty appears to sympathise with small states, giving them the impression, albeit false, that states are equal under international Law, in international politics, states are not equal.
They have never been equal; they will never be equal. If history and experience are worth noting, it is the fact that states do not want to be equal to other states. Instead, states strive to surpass others economically, politically, diplomatically, especially militarily.
They cannot do this; they enter into alliances with other less enthusiastic but willing states to overpower another state or group of states. This is particularly true of NATO. NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation formed in 1949, as one of such multilateral ‘regional’ alliances comprising Western European states, anchored by the United States of America, with the primary objective to deter Communist aggression anywhere in the World. As Robert Osgood noted, “… it was directed at countering communism … that confronted the United States with a dual-threat, to its security and international ideals”. It was more of a defensive network of states to defend the territorial integrity of its members against the expected expansion of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Even when, in 1954, the Soviet Union wanted to become a member of NATO, they were refused on several occasions.
They could not be allowed to be the party of a scheme designed to bring her to her knees someday. The Soviet Union subsequently created her security alternatives, particularly the Warsaw Pact in 1955. It comprised Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union, lasting till 1989. Finally, in 1990, the numerous Soviet republics decided to dissolve the Union.
Being the principal partner, the Russian part inherited the United Nations Security Council seat as one of the Five Permanent members [other being The United States, United Kingdom, France and China]. In everyday parlance, particularly in Nigeria, we say – na from clap dem de enta dance! There is the tendency for people to take a mile after being allowed just an inch. It should be evident to any Realist and Reader of International Relations that the United States and her NATO partners have become too emboldened and aggressive. It is not surprising that, while the Soviet Union crumbled and continued to shrink in influence, NATO somewhat began to enlist members of the former Warsaw Pact and even the USSR one after the other.
Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic in 1999, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020. The rationale for such extension of membership is not particularly clear since extending democracy has nothing to do with NATO. Interestingly, since its inception, no single NATO member has come under threat from the so-called Communist aggression. Instead, NATO’s main actions have been against non-member states, with Libya reminding her responsible for the Alliance. In any case, such attack or misuse of NATO’s power has never been much of Russia’s problem.
Instead, the fallen superpower has focused on maintaining its status and survival because of its siege mentality, expecting an attack from the West. We should not forget that the History of Russia through to the present has been that of great effort to deter western aggression and has never been the reverse. We recall that in 1923, the West – United States, France, Britain, Japan – have meddled militarily into the crisis in Russia by supporting the White Communist against the Reds.
Though a cold war brewed, as a result, this was put aside in the course of the Second World War because of the need to collaborate to defeat a common enemy – Germany under Adolf Hitler. However, even while the war was on, with its toll biting on Russia owing to the gimmicks of the West, the secrets of the Atomic Bomb was also kept from Stalin.
The war ended with the defeat of Germany and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But the victors would not party for long. The Cold War started in earnest, with the communist scare leading to policies and alliances, including NATO, all against the Soviet Union.
The Cold War ended in 1989 with the later liquidation/dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [USSR]. However, following the dissolution, Russian Federation continued to maintain a close tie with members of the republics, including Ukraine.
They have maintained a cordial relationship since the end of the Cold War. Ukraine decided to relinquish its nuclear arsenal and return to Russia, a senior member of the defunct Soviet Union, indicating that Russia and Ukraine have been closer both as neighbours and brothers.
Then we fast-forward to 2021, and the European Union wants Ukraine to be a member of NATO! This is why I ask, with recourse to History, is it not more profitable to make Russia a member of NATO than bother about Ukraine? Until its present form, international relations have been more of power politics. It is essentially more of power Politik than politics of equals disguised as Sovereignty. While the idea of Sovereignty appears to sympathise with small states, giving them the impression, albeit false, that states are equal under international law, in international politics, states are not equal.
They have never been equal; they will never be equal. If History and experience are worth noting, it is the fact that states do not want to be equal to other states. States strive to surpass others economically, politically, diplomatically, especially militarily. Where they are unable to do this, they enter into alliances with other less enthusiastic, but willing states, with this aim of overpowering another state or group of states. Therefore, the arguments by NATO and most hypocrites and myopic minded individuals that Ukraine is a sovereign state, and so has freedom of membership of any organisation is somewhat; like allowing Canada to become a member of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. Sovereignty allows a state internal control absolutely, but for such state to carry out its will with regards other states, its power must be commensurate with such ambition. If this is not convincing, then we should rewind to of 1961 when the Cuba Missile Crisis occurred.
Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, later termed the Thirteen Days Crisis, is lauded today as one of the United Nations’ significant triumphs at preventing a war between the Superpowers during the Cold War. It showed decency in diplomacy, anchored by men of principles, reminiscence of the Bismarckian era.
The crisis came up when the United States suddenly discovered that the Soviet Union was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. It was a very alarming situation for the U.S., ironically! How could the Soviet Union decide to plant missile in its neighbourhood from Europe? Interestingly, there is no land connecting the United States with Cuba. It is just kilometres of space apart filled with water.
But the United States saw this as an existential threat, needing urgent action(s). note that the prevailing Cold War environment did not particularly condition her reaction; the United States has never compromised its national security, even if it means allowing Douglas McArthur to labelling its citizens as Communists or attacking Iraq simply because Saddam Hussein sympathising with Al Qaeda over 9/11 attack! Anyway, Moscow took that decision to plant the missiles in Cuba fun and as a ruse! Cuba was not strategic to Russia since Moscow has never nursed any ambition to attack the United States.
Instead, the Soviet Union wanted the United States to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey! Yet, it was an issue of life and death for the United States to the point that it, ‘the Pentagon had moved U.S. forces from DEFCON 5, peacetime status, to DEFCON 2, just one away from war’. The crisis was the first of the two occasions where the Cold War between the Superpowers could have turned hot [the other being the Yum Kippur War of 1973].
The crisis was so intense that the United States had to quarantine Soviet ships in international waters. How was the crisis resolved? It was simple. Russia agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba, while the United States agreed never to invade Cuba. In addition, the United States secretly agreed, “… to remove the US Jupiter missiles from Turkey, though with the provision that this be kept an absolute secret from all parties. … Robert [Kennedy] made it clear to Dobrynin that any Soviet reference to the U.S. assurance to remove the missiles from Turkey would make it null and void.” Emphasis mine Removing the missiles from Turkey was not a big deal to President J.F. Kennedy, since, “… they’re not militarily useful, number one. Number two . . . to any man at the United Nations or any other rational man, it will look like a very fair trade.” The Kennedys, Khrushchev and the then U.N. Secretary-General, U Thant, could resolve the 13 Days Cuba Missile Crisis with almost no casualty. I mean, those were the days when men were men.
Is it the Case of Double Standard?
The question is: How is the claim of Russia that Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO different from that of U.S. resolve that Moscow must halt the missile deployment in Cuba? First, we should note is the similarities of situations. We should look at the fact that Cuba and the United States have never been friends. In fact, they were enemies at the relevant period.
Yet, Cuba was a sovereign state, and under international Law has internal control to allow anything on its soil. After all, it was difficult to prove that the missile was being put there because of the United States. What is more, the position of the Soviet Union is more precarious. Unlike Cuba, Ukraine has been part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a major partner in the Union. Unlike that of Cuba, its border is almost intertwined with that of Russia and without any barrier. Moreover, it has shared military secrets with Russia during the Cold War.
And more importantly, it is too close to Russia for NATO, a military alliance to become a member. We should consider this, not the lies and deceits the Western governments and their media are dishing out. Also, as in the case of European powers disregarding Germany even after the Franco-Prussian War, the West has refused to accord Russia the respect befitting of a superpower.
One of the nations perceived by De Tocqueville, as far as 1837, that, “… seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world”. This was a country with military strength unparalleled in Europe is, in fact, the World [by 1980], even after three decades of the close of the Cold War remains in a close second to the United States. In fact, as I found out recently, the nuclear arsenal relinquished to Russia by Ukraine was the third-largest in the World [after those of Russia and the United States] much more than those of Britain, France and China combined. Moreover, in the Cold War, Russia made advance military preparations/inventions in an attack by the West. ‘In August 1957, the Soviets successfully launched the World’s first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and, in October, launched the first earth satellite, Sputnik.
The launch of Sputnik inaugurated the Space Race’. In fact, Russia’s financial and industrial commitments in defence of its territory and allies were partly responsible for her economic woes in the immediate post-Cold War period. Yet, it retained its status as a military power, and in the least, second only next to the United States. Yet, these senseless states boys from the West appear ignorant of these facts. In any case, they should know that they can only mess with Russia at their peril.
Postscript
Under International Law, Russia may not have the right to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO. Then again, Law is not the ultimate determinant of the conduct of states in international politics. Rather, politics among nations is determined by the players’ powers, especially when such has to do with the world stage. So is the saying in international relations: What Sovereignty makes equal, power makes unequal. Sovereignty may allow a state its way within its territory, but the power such state possesses would enable it to take certain actions involving/affecting other countries. Therefore, International Law may grant states Sovereignty, but a foolish state may lose it through carelessness. R.I.P. Ukraine. Is [was] Russia’s request too much to ask from the inferior peace-loving democracies of Europe? International Law and its disciples have been silenced since Russia has invaded Ukraine. The problem is that such invasion could have been avoided. The benefit, in any, of Ukraine’s membership in NATO is incomparable to the cost of the funeral expenses of Ukraine. Therefore, it was only proper for Russia to refuse Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. But the European got carried away by the outdated American guarantee, so much so that they continued to taunt Russia under the guise of exporting democracy to every country in Europe, only except Russia.
Whether we like it or not, Ukraine is gone as a sovereign state; it is dead to International Law. This may be denied, but it does not matter. The problem now is wither with the crises to follow. Europe has come to rely on American assurance for its security against the long-perceived Russian aggression. While they have been right to rely on the United States to follow through with her promise, the present situation would have made these European governments a little bit careful. It would appear that they, too got caught up in the lies and deceits they have suddenly become accustomed to. They ought to have known that the characters of those presently occupying the White House are of such that they cannot match their words with actions.
I will have to wonder how NATO could threaten Russia with a few thousand soldiers because of guarantee from a country that has become so divided more than ever before. But the United States can still save face by claiming that it has not failed NATO because the guarantee is against an attack on NATO members! Ukraine is not a NATO member, and thank God; it will never be! In any case, the long-awaited aggression has come.
The question should not be what is to be done with the crisis in Ukraine, but rather: WHAT ARE THE EUROPEANS GOING TO DO WHEN RUSSIA STARTS INVADING THEIR TERRITORIES ONE AFTER THE OTHER? Reality points to helplessness. The United States cannot help militarily. Sanction is out of it; Russia has the gun, and so Europe cannot keep bread away from her for too long. If the sanctions become effective and biting, which is not possible [with $600b in her war chest], Russia may resort to the principles allowed in the state of nature, since Europe may become should things go worse. Is there any military option feasible? I doubt. Warfare has changed even though there has not been any major war since the Second World War [WWII]. Presently, no European state is a match for Russia, Even an attack on Russia by any European state is not possible. The distance between Ukraine, being the closest point from Western Europe is such that cannot be covered for an attack to be possible. Not even a combination of the entire European military can match Russia’s. Even worse, as McGregor noted, “…. They [Russia] have integrated their defence capabilities; that reaches from the Gulf of Finland down to the Black Sea; they can now strike at any target in Western Europe that may host U.S. forces that for any reason may try to interfere with them”. In any case, the United States lacks the moral justification for embarking on a war with Russia. Also, it would take a period to be prepared for such war, by which time – as Hitler had planned – the whole of Europe and its army would have come under Putin’s control. The United States may not be able to get close enough to attack Russia. Even worse is this fact that, Europe knows what war means to its civilisation, especially a war with Russia. It is a gamble that they may not want to be part of. The same may be the consideration of United States. Her civilisation is too dear to her. She has debuted nuclear weapon, but using same is now problematic, especially against an enemy that is also a major nuclear power. It is a very disturbing scenario. In retrospect, we would wish that Russia was never provoked to this point. Would it halt at Ukraine? If not, would it halt with the annexation of the rest of European territories? What if it decides to enlist the support of China to finally attack the United States of America? What would be the fate of the rest of mankind? Is Russian request for guarantee still on the table? We should hope so, but me I doubt say dem go just stop there; since it’s been a long time coming!
I will leave us with Alec Blac’s lyrics – Ticking bomb. The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb So keep your calm and carry on The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb The sun may never rise again The question ain’t if but when The sea will mourn, the sky will fall The sun may never rise again The silent war has begun We’re staring down loaded gun No refuge found no solid ground Assuming race can’t be won Don’t wait to say goodbye, you’re running out of time Whatever you believe, it’s easy to see The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb So keep your calm and carry on The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb And it’s about to explode The whole world, the whole world The whole world, the whole world The future is a dying art Laying in a ditch in the dark I need you here but all I hear Is the beating of a broken heart Don’t wait to say goodbye, you’re running out of time Whatever you believe, it’s easy to see The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb So keep your calm and carry on The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb And it’s about to explode The whole world, the whole world The whole world, the whole world And it’s about to explode The whole world, the whole world The whole world, the whole world The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb And it don’t care what side you’re on The whole world sitting on a ticking bomb.
