Vladimir Poutin, Russia president
Diplomatic Solutions for Ukraine
Ukraine and Russia are at odds. Russia has massed over 130,000 troops on its border, along with large vehicles and other weapons of war, capable of quickly invading that country.
Ukraine, although interested in becoming a member of NATO for its future protection, is not currently a member and the study leading to an eventual membership is no where near. Russia is strongly opposed to this, considering that such a decision would be a serious threat to its security.
On the contrary, NATO and the free world consider that this is a request that belongs only to the concerned country. It recalls that NATO is only a “defensive” military alliance. It does not want to attack any country and has not done so in the 70 years of its existence, according to its claim. It exercises the UN-recognized right of self-defence in case of aggression against one of its members.
Unfortunately, there has been one notable exception where the alliance has intervened militarily: it carried out aerial bombings in the former Yugoslavia during their civil war. This exception has made Russia shudder and fear new “offensive” interventions on their part.
But let us briefly summarize the evolution of NATO since its creation. In 1950, it consisted of 11 countries. Time passed and contrary to what the former leader of the USSR, Nikita Khrushchev, had predicted, it was not the West that collapsed in 1991 under its contradictions, but the USSR. Its satellite countries, with a great appetite for freedom and security, took advantage of this unexpected opportunity to join NATO.
This change of allegiance increased the number of NATO member countries from 11 to 30. Most of them also joined the European Economic Community (EEC). And so, the new NATO frontier soon reached Belarus and Ukraine, two countries bordering Russia.
This is what worries Vladimir Putin. He does not believe that such a military power on his borders will remain a defensive organization forever. NATO is so powerful that Russia fears the possible invasion of its own country, despite its nuclear arsenal.
No agreement seems possible between the two groups. We are currently witnessing a real deadlock. And the tension is rising. Is there a diplomatic solution to this explosive situation? It is certainly possible to solve some thorny problems.
First, let's clarify the case of Crimea. This Black Sea peninsula is connected to Ukraine, in the north, by land, but is only connected to Russia, in the east, by a bridge. Beyond this bridge, the widening of the sea is such that it has been given a name, “the Sea of Azov”.
Crimea was conquered by Russia a few centuries ago and she wants to keep it like the apple of her eye, because, despite the gigantic size of the Russian territory, this country has no other access to ice-free waters 12 months a year.
However, during his time in power in the USSR in the early 1960s, Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. This was probably more convenient because of its land connection. However, he did not write an implicit condition for this transfer, because he never imagined that the end of the USSR could happen. Today, it is quite certain that he would have the foresight to add, as an imperative condition, the cancellation of the transfer if Ukraine left the USSR. But he did not do it. And Ukraine, which has since become an independent country, has kept Crimea.
Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia, decided to correct this “mistake” by taking back manu militari the territory that he invaded in 2014. There were a few deaths, as any war generates, but in small numbers. No one, however, came to Ukraine's rescue.
The international community protested against this denial of modern legality, but it did so only on paper. They sent some money and military equipment, but not a single soldier to restore what they all believed to be international law.
Why did they do this? Because the whole world believes that in practice Crimea is Russian territory. Its population is predominantly Russian and its history for several centuries is Russian. Its passage from Russia to Ukraine is considered a blunder by Nikita Khrushchev ... now corrected in Wild West fashion by Vladimir Putin. So, despite modern rules, which say that such a transfer cannot be unilaterally undone, no ally of Ukraine will concretely support its recapture of Crimea. NATO will not interfere. And Ukraine is not fit to win a war against Russia.
What to do? In this world of face-saving diplomacy, a simple solution would be for Ukraine to sell Crimea to Russia.
Why would Ukraine sell it? Because not only does it not have the power to change this state of affairs, but NATO will deny it membership if this border dispute with Russia still exists.
Why would Russia buy it? Because it would restore the legality of this territorial possession. The worst arrangement is better than the best war. Finally, it would eliminate an unresolved dispute in the eyes of the United Nations.
At what price could such a sale be made? In the event of a disagreement, there has been an international arbitration body in The Hague in the Netherlands for over a hundred years that specializes in such matters. Both parties could give them the mandate to estimate the price and commit to respect the decision of the tribunal.
This type of transaction has occurred a few times in modern human history. Among them was the purchase of Louisiana from France by the United States in 1803, a huge territory that grew over the next century into 13 of the 50 states that make up this country today. The United States also acquired Alaska from Russia in 1867, north of Canada.
Let's move on to the next problem: the alleged rebellion in the eastern territories of Ukraine against their central government.
It is provided for in the UN Charter that territories attached to a country can declare themselves independent and ask to be detached from that country to become free.
Vladimir Putin claims that this is the case for territories in eastern Ukraine where a large population of Russian speakers live. For its part, Ukraine claims that these supposed rebellions were fomented by Russia to justify a possible attack on their country.
This is a very good case that could be submitted to the same international arbitration tribunal mentioned above. Such a proposal would be difficult for Russia to refuse. Ukraine, on the other hand, might find it hard to swallow, but at least the case would be examined objectively by an independent tribunal.
Of course, the parties must agree to accept the verdict before the sentence is passed. NATO, again, could make this a condition for considering Ukraine's application for membership. Russia might be reluctant to comply, but pressure from the United Nations would probably be enough to force their hand.
The third and last problem is the possible membership of Ukraine in NATO.
Russia is opposed to this for reasons that are unacceptable to the West. Russia, when the USSR fell, could have become a liberal democracy like the other countries of the Warsaw Pact and the question would not arise. Russia itself could then have become a member of NATO.
If this did not happen, not all the blame can be laid at Vladimir Putin's door. After the fall of the USSR, Russia seemed to have fallen into the hands of a corrupt elite that shared the spoils of war and profiteers from the West, including powerful Americans who were not above helping themselves without scruples. This is what this autocrat claims to have tackled by exercising strict power to suppress them. But this strict power is called “dictatorship”.
This does not prevent us from considering a compromise that would save face for both parties. Without giving in on the Russian demand to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO forever, it would probably be possible to delay meeting this demand in order to calm things down.
However, certain conditions would have to be met: Russia would have to commit to disarming the Ukrainian border and not attack its territory. NATO, for its part, would also have to commit itself not to attack Russia, a condition that it would have no problem accepting since this is clearly not its intention. And all this would bring the tension back to a reasonable level.
Of course, these proposals do not address the important issue of human rights in Russia. This is an unfortunate, serious, unacceptable situation. But for the time being, there does not seem to be any possible positive development in the short term to remove this autocrat and all his accomplices from political power.
However, these solutions will clash with Vladimir Putin, for whom only an unfavorable military balance of power would lead him to give up his real goal: to bring Ukraine back on board with other autocratic countries.
The establishment of a liberal democracy on the Russian borders worries this life-time dictator. He will do anything to destabilize the democratic government of Ukraine, including invading that country if he can do so without serious consequences, as he did with Crimea.
Diplomatic solutions, however reasonable they may be, will probably not be enough to prevent an irresponsible shift to warlike violence, despite the risks of it getting out of hand.
Prochaine lettre: Poutine le tzar-fou
Comments