Debrief and Potential Solution to US-Russia Crisis over Ukraine

Debrief and Potential Solution to US-Russia Crisis over Ukraine

Article by Alfred Xavier






Yet again, the US, the West, and Russia have found themselves in another quagmire reminiscent of the ones from the Cold War—and even one from 8 years ago. In recent weeks, US, European, and Ukrainian officials have been on high alert at the sight of the mobilization of 100,000 Russian soldiers situated along the Ukrainian border in multiple regions. Western officials have made numerous warnings and predictions on the possibility of starting a new and bloody European war that could drag several world powers in as the Russian invasion threat seems imminent. Eight years since the annexation of Crimea by Russia, in response to the ousting of a pro-Russian president in Ukraine, Ukraine has found itself once again fending off a centuries-long dominant and creeping Russian influence, with the US and its NATO counterparts scrambling to find an effective solution to repel the possibility of a ‘full-fledged war,’ as said by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Now, before fingers start pointing at Russia, let’s dissect the historical connections to this problem and consider both sides’ concerns. Firstly, Russia is warranted in its profound aggression against Ukraine and the West. As NATO has granted membership to many Eastern European countries subsequent to the fall of the USSR, the West has made an ever so creeping militaristic presence near Russia through NATO. Through this, it is understandable that Russia feels threatened by the proximity of NATO buildup near the nation, which could be a potential exacerbating factor for Russia if a similar tension elsewhere could explode into a war. Make no mistake, there are plenty of countries in the past that have threatened or flat out launched invasions in response to encroaching enemies. Take, for example, Erdogan’s Turkey, which invaded a civil-war ridden Syria to create a so-called “safe-zone” due to the close proximity of Kurdish YPG and PKK forces along its border in Northwest Syria in late 2019, who are hostile with Turkish troops and have engaged in conflict with them in the past. (2). There are numerous other historical examples similar to this one. Evidently, it is common sense to see why a nation wouldn’t want its enemies so near. In our case, a potential solution for both sides would just be leaving Ukraine alone and leaving it as a permanent buffer between both sides, right? Nope. Here’s where we run into more problems: Russia, specifically Putin, has long claimed Ukraine as a centuries-long-existing sphere of influence. In fact, Putin’s power in Russia has been characterized by the Atlantic Council as an obsession with Ukraine from the start, as he had even written a 5,000-word essay on Ukraine’s undeniable belonging to Russia recently(3). Along with Russia, he wants to exercise the imperial ambitions and power the USSR once had against the West. In addition, Russians simply consider Ukrainians as their own based on their culture and customs. Still, conflicting attitudes exist within Ukraine, as its leadership ardently longs for their country’s membership in NATO to protect it from its constantly encroaching Russian neighbor. Some Ukrainians hold some Russian traditions and other identity aspects from Russia, and another group wants perfect freedom and sovereignty to manage their own business. The West has repeatedly tried to intervene for Ukraine and exercise NATO’s open-door policy but has been met with constant resistance. Given all of this, the situation seems to go in circles, but a solution can be taken from this all...

As mentioned before, it isn’t exactly feasible to solely leave Ukraine as a permanent buffer zone. Although, we can make that permanent state conditional on meeting the needs of both sides better, and here’s how: Ukraine can be barred from joining NATO permanently, IF and only IF the Russians agree to pullback their amassed troops and supplies on their borders and agree to de-escalate fighting happening in the Donetsk and Luhansk region between Russian separatists and Ukrainian government soldiers, with diplomatic efforts happening on both sides to respect current borders. In addition, a proposal should be made that Ukraine should make efforts towards lowering corruption and allowing for pro-Russian, pro-European, and other political parties to freely and peacefully vie for support among the Ukrainian population without the usage of violence, bribing, threatening, and corruption from any side to gain a political advantage. There are numerous benefits to this. First, it allows the Ukrainian population to place its desired leader through a monitored democratic process instead of having their lives decided by people who don’t even live within their own nation. Second, this prevents the West or Russia from gaining an unfair political advantage, which could be grounds for either side to start a military conflict or further corrupted political struggle. Finally, this provides a leeway for Ukraine to join NATO if Russia ever tries to step out of boundaries and invade/occupy it, since Ukraine is partially ineligible to join NATO for two main reasons: it’s corrupt politics(which, according to the solution would be fixed by a reformed democratic process)(4), and constant quarreling with Russia which would force frequent NATO conflicts with Russia. This way, Russia can be deterred from aggressively asserting power and the West from being unable to effectively support Ukraine in the event of an armed conflict and protect it in the future. Consequently, Russia would have to seek more non-violently deliberate methods to gain influence in Ukraine if it wishes to do so. Tying it all up, such a measure would prevent either side from gaining an automatic advantage in the event of a major conflict and give the Ukrainian people their desired freedom to manage their own politics, beliefs, ideas, and sovereignty.

In the end, as appealing this proposal may be, it must be understood that a certain level of stubbornness and power-hunger exists on both sides, which may be why diplomats are struggling so much to reach a deal that could genuinely equally benefit all parties. Ultimately, let’s all hope and trust in our leaders that they will put their ambitions aside and work towards a peaceful and beneficial solution rather than the advent of the prelude to a possible world war. No pressure on them at all…



Work Cited

Schwirtz, Michael, and Scott Reinhard. “How Russia's Military Is Positioned to Threaten Ukraine.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Jan. 2022, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/07/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html.

Weise, Zia. “Turkey's Invasion of Syria Explained.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 17 Oct. 2019, www.politico.eu/article/8-questions-about-turkeys-incursion-into-syria-answered/.

“Inside Putin's Ukraine Obsession.” Atlantic Council, 27 Jan. 2022, www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/inside-putins-ukraine-obsession/.

Dettmer, Jamie. “Aside from Kyiv, No One in Rush for Ukraine to Join NATO.” VOA, Aside from Kyiv, No One in Rush for Ukraine to Join NATO, 12 Jan. 2022, www.voanews.com/a/aside-from-kyiv-no-one-in-rush-for-ukraine-to-join-nato/6393900.html.