Recent international attention has been paid to the increasingly grave situation in Ukraine, where there is ongoing violence between Ukrainian and Russian military forces, which want to maintain control over Crimea. The conflict began in 2014, after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country due to a series of escalated protests regarding economic integration with the European Union. Russian military troops then took control of Crimea, a part of Ukraine that is majority Russian.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, this unsurprisingly heightened ethnic divisions in the region, and ultimately resulted in a local referendum led by Russian-backed separatists that declared independence from Ukraine. Since 2014, there have been tens of thousands of casualties — at the very least, around 10,000 killed and just under 25,000 injured — inflicted by both Russian and Ukrainian forces. NATO reported in 2016 that it would deploy battalions to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland to discourage future Russian involvement in the region, although Russia has largely denied accusations of its involvement in the violence.
Western media have focused on responses to the conflict from the U.S. and NATO, which include sending military weapons to Ukraine, among other types of aid, for defense. This seems to only escalate the situation because it provides only more incentive for Russia to continue deploying military personnel to control Crimea. However, it is a widely accepted response likely for two reasons: firstly, it is common for nation-states to respond to impending conflict with force. Although it may escalate the situation, it is historically-speaking very common. Secondly, the countries executing this response are evidently some of the most powerful in the world, which gives the U.S., member states of NATO, and Russia greater permission to do what they see fit.
Although it is not the best, the response by the West persists because Russia and NATO can continue to retaliate against one another ‘little by little,’ until a legitimate war is declared. In other words, the conflict has not yet become a ‘war,’ but the violence reported in Crimea makes it clear that the U.S. and Russia’s slow-burn of the other has grave effects. Therefore, it is important to make the distinction that the U.S. and NATO’s response appears not to be much of an effort at peacemaking, but is rather an effort to control Russia.
Furthermore, it fails to address the ongoing ethnic tensions in Eastern Europe and how those tensions impact the allegiance that people of different ethnic groups feel to certain nations. It is unsurprising that a majority Russian section of Crimea would rather be part of Russia than Ukraine. This does not mean that there should be such a swift annexation of the region, but it is important to clarify that these tensions exist for a reason and have certain implications. Given that NATO has been heavily involved in the situation for a while now, it is probably best that they continue aid — albeit weapons and other military materials — to Ukraine. This is because, if these countries were to remove themselves now, Ukraine would be left even more vulnerable and more prone not only to Russian involvement but to even more violence.
It is important to note here that Russia’s reluctance for a truly post-Soviet Eastern Europe where individual nations are free and truly independent is true, but the way this is framed in the West is a bit more reductive than is useful. It seems more that this is indicative of the ever-present East-West divide and how the U.S. and Russia will do anything to lobby forces and other states against one another. It is not entirely fair at all to position the U.S. as a power absolved of the same wrongs that they and NATO are claiming Russia is responsible for, when the U.S. and other powerful countries in NATO are responsible for very similar — if not the same — actions. Essentially it is dangerous to frame the U.S. as a perfect promoter of peace, when it is very familiar with the seizure of external territories, as well as the use of violence to promote that.
As aforementioned, this is not the way the U.S. and NATO should have gone about this in the first place. What has been done already cannot be changed, and that is why NATO must finish what they first engaged with. In the future, however, it would be most thoughtful for NATO and Russia to assess what they hope to gain or positively contribute to the situation. Of course, it is difficult because Russia wants full control over Crimea, which is not a very positive thing. Nonetheless, Russia should understand what the likely response will be from the West. As for the West, before deploying military personnel, they should understand what exactly will be the benefit of that. This is, of course, not usually (if ever) the reaction of powerful countries to dangerous situations. Establishing a process of thinking before acting could greatly reduce future harm.
This would also involve looking past the ongoing East-West divide to recognize that, probably no matter what, there will always be a level of difference between the two; and neither the West (NATO) nor the East (Russia) will be able — at least in the near future — to convince the other that capitalism or communism, respectively, is better. Therefore, it is urgent that these powers stop operating based on whose power is growing where, but actually give proper attention to harm reduction and conflict prevention. The tension between the two powers is incredibly deep-seeded, and it is unlikely that either would rescind control. As optimistic as it may be, establishing a relationship between the two powers that is based on fundamental recognition of the fact that neither is likely to ever be able to control the other’s actions is the most promising way to promote the wellbeing of the international community.
