This is an excellent analysis.
If Rasmus Fogh is reading this, perhaps he might see that others writers on Unherd happen to share my views, and perhaps what I was saying is not quite so way out there on another planet as Rasmus seems to believe.
What is completely clear is that to resolve the current situation and avoid further devastation some application of realpolitik and understanding of the facts on the ground as they are and not as some might like them to be, might be advisable before we are all led by the armchair warmongers down a path to irreversible and a complete disaster.
Excellent analysis, yes. But then, unlike you he provides a lot of information and considerations that support his point and have been ignored in recent debate. Not sure his remedies can work, and he seems to have some of the same hidden biases as you, but his analysis is based on reality.
I replied to you yesterday along similar lines to this article as you seemed under informed about the history and politics, particularly around Euromaidan, but my reply still seems to be floating in and out of moderation for some reason.
So I basically write in the comments section exactly the same thing as in this article, but according to you I live on a different planet and this article is based on reality. Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? My own conclusion is that you’re not thinking critically about the situation, just as you weren’t about COVID, and that you fully accept, without questioning the “narrative” which in this case is largely driven by Ukrainian and western propaganda.
The “facts on the ground” indicate Putin has a largely incompetent ground force. Given the present optempo, within a few weeks his army will have suffered more casualties than the Soviets did in the entire Afghan War. HIs only recourse now is terror bombing–a not very effective tactic vis a vis Britain in 1941, at least.
Sorry, “real politik” belongs to the days of pickelhaubes and cocked hats. The present involves a people’s war–against a dictator fighting for his very existence. Things are likely to get much worse before they get better.
In such a context, ideas about real politik are are not just unreal, but delusional.
Unlike you, I follow “facts on the ground” from sources on both sides. And in fact it is quite far from incompetence if you look at the Russian forces progress. The so-called cauldron of Donbass is closing as well as Mariupol operation near end — and it is probably going to be the end of any organaized resistance.
It is going relatively slowly exactly because they are not using usual American tactics : level everything to the ground (or just napalm it) and then enter with forces. Yes there is a terrible civilian casulties count and both sides lie terribly about it (“rus forces delib. kill civilians” vs. “ukr forces use civilians as a shield”)
Skip Simonds
2 years ago
I’m probably going to draw fire for this, but here goes anyway. There is one niggling little fact that seems to escape this author: a sovereign nation has been invaded by a neighbor, its citizens are being killed, its infrastructure is being systematically destroyed, and the goal is the colonization of said sovereign nation. Period. Fact.
So much of this article seems to me to be very, very close to blaming the victim. Or at least using the victim’s weaknesses as a sort of explanation as to why this happened. Missing, it seems to me, is a far simpler explanation (Occam’s Razor) that a single man, in the position of absolute authority, would like to reconstitute the nation he wishes he were the premier of: USSR.
Yes, Ukraine may be corrupt, poorly governed, mired in poverty, divided, controlled by elite oligarchs, yada, yada, and yada. None of that, however true it may be, justifies the armed invasion of a sovereign nation with the clear intent of annexation.
War is always justifiable to both sides. The very act of going to war means that one side feels extremely justified in their actions. And the other side feels justified in defending themselves.
This is true. Hitler thought his world view provided ample justification for his aggression. But we don’t have to meekly accept the explanations of tyrannical dictatorships.
My takeaway from this wasn’t that the author is in agreement with the invasion… the man is clearly intelligent and understands that most in his audience cannot move beyond the emotion of war as it is obviously horrific. This article is explaining why this situation has developed and that it is complex and nuanced.
I am sorry but author is trying to be nuanced only in justifying Russian aggression.
Russians constitute only 17% of Ukraine population.
Why should minority decide destiny of huge majority?
Moving beyond emotion of war?
No idea where you live but maybe you need bombs falling on your house to decide that what Russia does is naked, genocidal aggression with no justification.
Great post.
The whole article is so full of lies and contradictions, that it is difficult to decide where to start.
So lets start with author claim that Russia wants “friendly sphere of influence” in neighbouring countries.
How friendly we know from centuries of Russian aggression, occupation and genocide.
His comments about Ukraine Church leaving “Mother Russia Church” are just disgusting.
It is not 12th century, when some despot in another country decides your religious destiny.
He then spouts usual rubbish about “no expansion of NATO”.
There is no agreement about it and rightly so.
However there was Budapest agreement about territorial integrity of Ukraine.
List of author lies and obfuscations is endless.
How someone like him is professor in uk University is beyond me.
We clearly see from his example that total cleanse of uk teaching “profession” is necessary if West is to survive.
No freedom to enemies of freedom..
There is a difference between explain and justify. Just as in a girl wearing a short skirt, revealing top, high heels and loads of make-up, and being out alone and late does not justify rape but goes a long way to explaining it.
great point. I do understand why there is a war, but can’t justify it. Most people can’t do either escaping to simlicity of “because he’s mad” or “because they are evil”
J Bryant
2 years ago
Thank you for this essay. A realistic assessment of how Ukraine and Russia ended up in this situation. Sadly, the conclusion that probably the only solution now possible is partition of Ukraine after much loss of life sounds about right.
Russia-Ukraine negotiations continue. Let’s hope both sides have received enough of a beating to make compromise seem attractive.
Billy Bob
2 years ago
So essentially Russia gets to decide the domestic and foreign policy of its neighbours? What a strange kind of sovereignty that is!
I find this appeasement of tyrants tiresome. To essentially claim there’s no such thing as Ukraine due to the differing ethnic groups Ukrainians belong to is an insult to all those currently fighting off Putins conscripts trying to turn their country into a colony.
There’s a reason almost every ex Soviet republic has looked to the west for protection, and that’s because Putin send in the heavy artillery and shells maternity wards whenever they make a decision he doesn’t agree with
Exactly so regarding realpolitik, but unfortunately few people seem to be able to navigate through the fog, and even fewer people are aware of the history of the region. Further, when they are then informed of history they just shout Russian disinformation, Putin stooge.,
Billy, in this conflict there are no good guys and bad guys, there are only bad guys. Ukraine is not lily white and an oasis of democracy with the big bad bear to its East. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt nations on earth and has never been democratic in the Western (US/UK) sense of the word, something that took well over 500 years to become truly established (from the signing of the Magna Carta in 2013 to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, even though less than half the population and only one gender were able to vote at the time!). If the Ukrainians were not Europeans and looked like us, and if this conflict didn’t involve the Russian bogeyman, I would bet you would not be particularly exercised by the current conflict.
This is a bad faith comparison. Ukraine is becoming less corrupt and more democratic; there are regular elections with a real choice. Russia is going in precisely the opposite direction and has been now for nearly 20 years, so that it is now a full on dictatorship. Does Zelensky have his political opponents or journalists murdered, including in foreign cities?
I find it somewhat bizarre that you end up making a ‘woke’ point. We live on the European – if you like Eurasian – continent and Russia considers itself at war with us! If that doesn’t make the situation more pertinent to Britain than the situation in Africa, I don’t know what would. It has actually killed a British citizen by recklessly using a deadly toxin in Salisbury. Any case there might have been for a ‘reasonable’ Russia under its current leadership has been completely exploded by this full scale Hitlerite invasion.
What has Zelensky done to warrant being called a bad guy? Or why would you label the thousands of Ukrainians desperately fighting to repel a foreign invasion of their homeland as bad guys?
The whole of Central America has to take into consideration how Washington will react when choosing their policies – access to grant aid, sanctions, gun-running, backing of rebel forces, and invasion are all tools that have been used by the US to ensure compliance with US foreign policy. Even the UK has to take into consideration the ire of the French when setting its fishing policies, or the need to protect the EU customs union when setting its border policies.
According to the Irish prime minister. Micheal Martin Back in 2016 in speech in Ireland’s parliament. He said he wants nothing to do with the backward idea of Sovereignty. Which members of my family fought and died for. So are the Ukrainians fighting for the EU so they can decide their domestic and foreign policy. Or for real sovereignty and neutrality. Just like Ireland once was.
The Ukrainians seem to think they would have more freedom and sovereignty as members of the EU than as ‘associates’ of Putins Russia. In this I believe they are correct.
Whilst I’m no fan of the EU and voted to leave it, you can’t compare it to the situation in Ukraine.
In my view the EU interferes far too much in a countries domestic politics and dies remove an element of a nations sovereignty, however the key difference is that it’s a voluntary union that it’s members are free to leave as the UK has proven. It’s completely different to having your countries policy’s dictated by your neighbour at gunpoint as Russia is trying to do
I have asked you this before with no reply…. What would you do as the situation stands and given what you know now – if you have been reading some of the recent fine essays depicting the complexity of the situation in Ukraine.
Ultimately it’s not my decision. If the Ukrainians decide they want to fight to preserve their democracy and be able to dictate their own domestic and foreign policy rather than being a subordinate of Moscow then the west should carry on in the manner they are of supplying weapons and applying economic pressure on Putin. If they decide they’re happy to jettison Crimea and the eastern regions that have effectively been annexed by Putin then again that decision should be respected. However if Putin decides to bring them into the dirt and force his will onto the population against their wishes then Russia should remain out in the cold.
I wouldn’t put foreign boots on the ground but I don’t see why the west should let a tyrant like Putin do as he pleases with no consequences either
I don’t really understand your question. The Ukrainians are fighting to be able to make their own decisions as a sovereign nation. What they choose to do with that power, be it join NATO, the EU or even Russia is entirely up to them
…by the logic displayed in this article, having decided to leave the EU – and as by far the larger power – the UK would be entitled to interfere in Ireland to impose co-operation on them in respect of cross-border trade…presumably by invading them if necessary..!
Mad…
Peter B
2 years ago
Frankly, some sort of partition where the big majority ethnic Russian parts unite with Russia and the rest remains as a stable, united, Western-aligned Ukraine seems far more sustainable.
If you leave any of these areas in the Ukraine, Putin or whoever comes next will exploit them to destabilise Ukraine (following AH’s late 1930s playbook).
I’d go further and get the Russians in “Transdnistria” (another fake and totally corrupt Russian “state”) resettled within Russia or on the Russian border. And ideally do something about the Kaliningrad exclave (effectively stolen by Russia in 1945).
Population movements like these are a last resort. But this was done on a huge scale after WWII (Poland and Ukraine both shifted a long way west, the Benes Decrees expelled Germans from Czechoslovakia, East Prussia disappeared).
There is no way Ukraine will accept being neutral now. Dream on.
Great post.
If Russia proposed some discussion about referendums in Russian majority areas before invading and it was rejected out of hand I would had some, albeit small, sympathy with Russia view.
Problem with resettlement is that Russia doesn’t want it and probably most of Russians in other countries do not want either.
I spoke to few Russians in London.
They turned out to be citizens of Baltic States with freedom of movement and work in EU.
Do you imagine them wanting to be part of vodka fuelled frozen wastelands of Russia.
It doesn’t mean Putin will not try to use them to destabilize Baltic States.
Russia is huge and depopulating.
So lets test Putin and offer all the poor downtrodden Russian resettlement grants.
Last edited 2 years ago by Andrew F
Rasmus Fogh
2 years ago
Very enlightening, and refreshingly clear analysis of what has happened. Not sure his proposals for alternative scenarios hold water though. Ukraine should have made a new nation that united all Ukrainians, regardless of language or allegiance to Russia? They should, of course, But realistically, how were they to build a Ukrainian nation without pushing the Ukrainian language or a Ukrainian version of history, and while maintaining soviet monuments and submitting their church to the Moscow Patriarchate? All in the face of a large minority whose primary allegiance was to Russia, and a strong and meddlesome neighbour who wanted to control them and did not think they had a right to exist in the first place? How realistic is it that Russia – well helped by pro-Russian Ukrainians – would ever have stopped meddling, or indeed have accepted less than full control? Finland was very much under the USSR thumb – and they were not seen as ‘really Russians’ or a crucial part of Russia’s imperial mythology. Nor did they have a Russian-speaking minority.
If he is right, maybe we should see this as yet another post-imperial inter-population scuffle, like the Habsburgs or Ottomans. There have been many, when peoples once united under a despotic empire had to form new nation states, and national feeling could not be made to match the geographical and political borders. If so, maybe partition and population exchange really is unavoidable.
It is notable that the author is very exercised about the pro-western Ukrainians “lock[ing] in its preferences against internal opposition by sacrificing Ukrainian national sovereignty to supranational organisations“, but does not even mention that renouncing ties with the EU and building them with Russia would equally (and much more strongly) lock in the preferences of the pro-Russian faction and sacrifice Ukrainian national sovereignity to Moscow. The final question remains: How much subjugation to Moscow does the author think that Ukraine must accept, in the name of great-power politics. And what does he propose if the Ukrainians are unwilling to accept it?
Read some of the pre-2013 history. Ukrainian politics has a strong influence of oligarchs and money men both overtly and behind the scenes – control of gas, pipelines, metallurgy industry where personal interests and local fiefdoms take priorities ahead of what we might see as western-style politics of principles. Yanukovych’s choice of Russia over EU was at least in part because Russia was offering more money (€610m from the EU versus $15bn from the Russians). Personal interests also spilled over into Ukrainian business interests in Washington, as well as Russia. Rich and powerful people who were used to buying the politics, politicians and justice that they wanted.
I do not doubt that you are right – you know more than I do anyway. But is it not still the case that “renouncing ties with the EU and building them with Russia would […] lock in the preferences of the pro-Russian faction and sacrifice Ukrainian national sovereignty to Moscow“?
It’s a poor question, unless you can also believe the converse – that Euromaidan “locked in the preferences of the pro-US faction and sacrificed Ukrainian national sovereignty to Washington” – same equivalence (and before you say the US wouldn’t take advantage like that, remember VP Biden threatening post-Maidan Ukraine to make them change their chief prosecutor).
If Ukraine had gone through with the Russian deal it would probably have been sovereign like other CIS states, but in the Russian sphere of influence, rather than sovereign but in the US sphere. Given the history it would also probably have drifted towards dictatorship and liable to strongman politics like Belarus or Kazakhstan, but still sovereign.
I can believe the converse. From the Ukrainian point of view I would say the two choices were fairly symmetrical – you choose a side. It is the article that only mentions the loss of sovereignty on one side.
You seem to be saying that choosing the Russian side would have led Ukraine to become like Belarus – run by a dictator in hock to the Kremlin, and playing host to the Russian army as required. I would call that a puppet state, even if it is technically sovereign (like East Germany was). I would also argue that choosing the US/EU side would give rather more real freedom of movement, i.e. sovereignty, as well as the chance of a nicer political system. More to the point, the Ukrainian majority seem to think so.
So, are you saying that the choice for Ukraine was between becoming like Belarus and being invaded? And that the west should have promoted the Belarus option, because nothing better was available? Or did you see another choice for Ukraine?
The “So, are you are saying…?” ploy.
How Ukraine would have turned out had the pro-Russia deal survived is an empty hypothetical. Putin wouldn’t have invaded Crimea, and so the West would still believe they could work with him. If you read articles from before and after Feb 2014 you can see how vilified Putin became post-Crimea, compared to earlier pragmatism – western analysts didn’t believe he would invade until it happened. So no Euromaidan, no Crimea and complete different view of, and relationship with, Russia and states within the Russia orbit.
No ploy intended, I was just trying to nail down where we disagreed.
How Ukraine would have turned out may be hypothetical, but it is not empty. If we are arguing that we ought to have accommodated Russia’s security interests earlier, and that includes having Ukraine make its deal with Russia, surely it is only fair to consider what would likely have happened in that case. After a minimum of required reading (Wikipedia), I’ll admit that the Maidan seems both murkier and more violent than it showed on Netflix. I am not normally in favour of revolutionary street demonstrations. But for all that I am sure both the US, Russia, and various oligarchs did what pushing they could, surely we must admit that this was an Ukrainian decision. Also that it took a remarkable support from civil society to achieve that result. Even as legitimate president with the army, police, and a large fraction of the country behind him, Yanukovich was not able to carry the country with him to make that deal with Russia, in the face of a (mainly?) unarmed protest.
As for Putin, the west believed they could work with him because they thought he was willing to stay within the normal collaborative rules. Once he proved that he would go to war to gain territory, that was gone. But I see no reason to believe that he would not have shown his true colours at some point even if he had been accommodated at the beginning.
We are none of us foreign ministers here. I claim no particular expertise, so judge me on my words. I would say that judging from Russias actions in Chechenya, Belarus, Crimea, Luhansk, and Ukraine, not to mention what Putin is actually saying himself, it seems highly probable that he would demand very close control over his neighbours ni any case, and would use violence if necessary to achieve it. But if you have a different or more precise idea, I am happy to learn from you (I already have, a bit). In fact, I keep asking what people think would be a realistic alternative to the current mess – without hearing much in the way of precise answers so far.
You probably still think there are bears on the streets, and everybody is playing balalayka and drinking vodka. Stay with that delusion! Only problem is that you pay for it every time you’re on a gas station (1.95 in Beglum vs 0.39 in Moscow).
Zoë Colvin
2 years ago
A war unleashed without provocation, in which civilian populations are targeted, is not due to betrayal by anyone other than the tyrant who gave the orders to attack. Trying to rationalise such savagery legitimises Putin’s illegitimate, monstrous acts.
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Well, I support the West and would infinitely prefer to live in it rather than the alternative autocracies and totalitarians. I tend to side with people seeking free societies, rather than our adversaries. The writer seems to swallow Russian propaganda hook line and sinker. Putin does not accept Ukraine’s right to exist, that is the fundamental issue here. He has stated this clearly in terms, a rather crucial point that the writer (deliberately?) overlooks.
Could anyone believe that a free sovereign nation should not be permitted to join a supranational trading body, such as the EU in any conceivable ‘rules-based order’? Or perhaps prohibited from leaving the Russian sponsored autocratic alternative, the EEU? It would be similar to the US being able to veto Brexit; most US administrations would much rather have Britain in it than outside.
And of course it goes well beyond that: Russia has launched attacks on Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and now a full scale invasion. NATO attacks on Russia – precisely zero. I have yet to hear any explanation as to why this in any meaningful sense differs from Hitler’s expansionism 80 years ago. He, as we may recall, also had a bucketful of paranoid justifications, decided all German speakers should be, whether they liked it or not, united with the Reich, and that Germany had an absolute right to expand at the cost of its neighbours, whatever treaties it had previously signed up to.
Yes, I asked the same question on this and other forums and no answer.
Why are we surprised?
There is no difference between what Putin wants and what Hitler wanted in Czechoslovakia.
Martin Logan
2 years ago
What is completely missed by most observers is that Maidan was largely a product of events inside Russia in 2012.
Putin’s re-election after Medvedev meant that the former was never going to step down. It was obvious to everyone that Russia was ceasing to be a democratic state. Indeed it is now essentially a totalitarian state where even the slightest opposition is ruthlessly suppressed. That is no accident, nor the fault of the West. It is the logical result in any authoritarian regime when it encounters opposition.
“Cloud-castle” ideas about “real politik” simply miss the point that emperors and kings no longer run Europe. Certainly, larger nations can influence their smaller neighbors.
But taking them over is another matter–as the relationship between the US and Cuba illustrates very eloquently.
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago
Could anyone believe that a free sovereign nation should not be permitted to join a supranational trading body, such as the EU? Or perhaps to be prohibited from leaving the Russian sponsored autocratic alternative, the EEU? It would be similar to the US being able to veto Brexit, as most US administrations would much rather have Britain in it than outside.
If I’m not mistaken the US tried that with Brexit. Recall when Obama said, I believe on a trip to the UK just before the actual Brexit vote, that the UK would be placed at the back of the queue in terms of negotiating any trade agreement with the US. If that does not represent the US not trying to influence the internal politics of a sovereign state with strong arm tactics, what is?
Come off it. ‘Influence’, yes, but ‘strong arm tactics’??
Russias reaction to the EU-Ukraine association agreement was a devastating trade blockade (the kind of thing that Johan Strauss might call ‘economic carpet bombing’?), which caused Yanukovich to refuse the EU deal and go for a Russia deal instead. When Euromaidan forced him to give up on that and rebuffed the Russia deal, Russia reacted by conquering first the Crimea, then the Donbas, and now launching a full-scale war.
This may be a difference of degree, but I see a world of difference between dragging your feet on a new trade deal and launching a full-scale military invasion. What happened to the Johan Strauss who believed in realpoitik and wanted us to respect Russias ‘security interests’ at the expense of Ukraine?
Oh, it is you again with your pro Russia lies.
Yes, Obama expressed an opinion, which was wrong.
However, USA did not invade to enforce that opinion.
If you don’t see difference between that and Russia invasion of Ukraine you are Russian stooge.
But we know that already, do not we?
Perry de Havilland
2 years ago
This is one of those ‘sensible’ articles that looks like serious analysis, yet fails to grasp what is driving Russian actions and the palpable shift in internal Ukrainian politics post-2014 (i.e. the collapse of the “pro-Russian” vote). I cannot take any analysis seriously that acts as if Maidan was driven by EU/US external meddling rather than the death of so many protestors & the imprisonment of opposition figures.
Most of the Ukrainian nationalists I know are actually Russian speakers, and anyone portraying this as Ukrainian speakers oppressing Russian speakers needs to explain why solidly Russian speaking Kharkiv greeted Russian troops not by throwing flowers at them but with NLAW ambushes.
George Kushner
2 years ago
Outstanding analysis. And unfortunately, yes, the only way out is to concede to the major Putin’s demands as to neutrality and territorial losses in order to keep Ukraine’s sovereignty. Can they trust Putin’s guarantees? No, but what’s the alternative?
Ray Zacek
2 years ago
I will wait for Zelenskyy to declare Finnish an official language of Ukraine.
Brooke Walford
2 years ago
This sounds right. Post Soviet detente wrecked by Western hubris, seasoned with oligarchic greed and ethnic diversity leveraged by geopolitical realpolitik.
This is an excellent analysis.
If Rasmus Fogh is reading this, perhaps he might see that others writers on Unherd happen to share my views, and perhaps what I was saying is not quite so way out there on another planet as Rasmus seems to believe.
What is completely clear is that to resolve the current situation and avoid further devastation some application of realpolitik and understanding of the facts on the ground as they are and not as some might like them to be, might be advisable before we are all led by the armchair warmongers down a path to irreversible and a complete disaster.
Excellent analysis, yes. But then, unlike you he provides a lot of information and considerations that support his point and have been ignored in recent debate. Not sure his remedies can work, and he seems to have some of the same hidden biases as you, but his analysis is based on reality.
I replied to you yesterday along similar lines to this article as you seemed under informed about the history and politics, particularly around Euromaidan, but my reply still seems to be floating in and out of moderation for some reason.
There are some very weird and unpredictable things happening with their moderation. Thanks for the reply, though, I shall keep looking for it.
I can barely be bothered any more. Anything I write seems to have a 50/50 chance of disappearing.
So I basically write in the comments section exactly the same thing as in this article, but according to you I live on a different planet and this article is based on reality. Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? My own conclusion is that you’re not thinking critically about the situation, just as you weren’t about COVID, and that you fully accept, without questioning the “narrative” which in this case is largely driven by Ukrainian and western propaganda.
Comment deleted
The “facts on the ground” indicate Putin has a largely incompetent ground force. Given the present optempo, within a few weeks his army will have suffered more casualties than the Soviets did in the entire Afghan War. HIs only recourse now is terror bombing–a not very effective tactic vis a vis Britain in 1941, at least.
Sorry, “real politik” belongs to the days of pickelhaubes and cocked hats. The present involves a people’s war–against a dictator fighting for his very existence. Things are likely to get much worse before they get better.
In such a context, ideas about real politik are are not just unreal, but delusional.
Unlike you, I follow “facts on the ground” from sources on both sides. And in fact it is quite far from incompetence if you look at the Russian forces progress. The so-called cauldron of Donbass is closing as well as Mariupol operation near end — and it is probably going to be the end of any organaized resistance.
It is going relatively slowly exactly because they are not using usual American tactics : level everything to the ground (or just napalm it) and then enter with forces. Yes there is a terrible civilian casulties count and both sides lie terribly about it (“rus forces delib. kill civilians” vs. “ukr forces use civilians as a shield”)
I’m probably going to draw fire for this, but here goes anyway. There is one niggling little fact that seems to escape this author: a sovereign nation has been invaded by a neighbor, its citizens are being killed, its infrastructure is being systematically destroyed, and the goal is the colonization of said sovereign nation. Period. Fact.
So much of this article seems to me to be very, very close to blaming the victim. Or at least using the victim’s weaknesses as a sort of explanation as to why this happened. Missing, it seems to me, is a far simpler explanation (Occam’s Razor) that a single man, in the position of absolute authority, would like to reconstitute the nation he wishes he were the premier of: USSR.
Yes, Ukraine may be corrupt, poorly governed, mired in poverty, divided, controlled by elite oligarchs, yada, yada, and yada. None of that, however true it may be, justifies the armed invasion of a sovereign nation with the clear intent of annexation.
War is always justifiable to both sides. The very act of going to war means that one side feels extremely justified in their actions. And the other side feels justified in defending themselves.
That doesn’t mean both sides are correct though
No, it means that both sides are incorrect.
…..and one of them invaded the other?
This is true. Hitler thought his world view provided ample justification for his aggression. But we don’t have to meekly accept the explanations of tyrannical dictatorships.
My takeaway from this wasn’t that the author is in agreement with the invasion… the man is clearly intelligent and understands that most in his audience cannot move beyond the emotion of war as it is obviously horrific. This article is explaining why this situation has developed and that it is complex and nuanced.
I am sorry but author is trying to be nuanced only in justifying Russian aggression.
Russians constitute only 17% of Ukraine population.
Why should minority decide destiny of huge majority?
Moving beyond emotion of war?
No idea where you live but maybe you need bombs falling on your house to decide that what Russia does is naked, genocidal aggression with no justification.
Great post.
The whole article is so full of lies and contradictions, that it is difficult to decide where to start.
So lets start with author claim that Russia wants “friendly sphere of influence” in neighbouring countries.
How friendly we know from centuries of Russian aggression, occupation and genocide.
His comments about Ukraine Church leaving “Mother Russia Church” are just disgusting.
It is not 12th century, when some despot in another country decides your religious destiny.
He then spouts usual rubbish about “no expansion of NATO”.
There is no agreement about it and rightly so.
However there was Budapest agreement about territorial integrity of Ukraine.
List of author lies and obfuscations is endless.
How someone like him is professor in uk University is beyond me.
We clearly see from his example that total cleanse of uk teaching “profession” is necessary if West is to survive.
No freedom to enemies of freedom..
There is a difference between explain and justify. Just as in a girl wearing a short skirt, revealing top, high heels and loads of make-up, and being out alone and late does not justify rape but goes a long way to explaining it.
great point. I do understand why there is a war, but can’t justify it. Most people can’t do either escaping to simlicity of “because he’s mad” or “because they are evil”
Thank you for this essay. A realistic assessment of how Ukraine and Russia ended up in this situation. Sadly, the conclusion that probably the only solution now possible is partition of Ukraine after much loss of life sounds about right.
Russia-Ukraine negotiations continue. Let’s hope both sides have received enough of a beating to make compromise seem attractive.
So essentially Russia gets to decide the domestic and foreign policy of its neighbours? What a strange kind of sovereignty that is!
I find this appeasement of tyrants tiresome. To essentially claim there’s no such thing as Ukraine due to the differing ethnic groups Ukrainians belong to is an insult to all those currently fighting off Putins conscripts trying to turn their country into a colony.
There’s a reason almost every ex Soviet republic has looked to the west for protection, and that’s because Putin send in the heavy artillery and shells maternity wards whenever they make a decision he doesn’t agree with
Careful, or you’ll start Mr Strauss up again. Remember, realpolitik is the word, not ‘appeasement’.
Exactly so regarding realpolitik, but unfortunately few people seem to be able to navigate through the fog, and even fewer people are aware of the history of the region. Further, when they are then informed of history they just shout Russian disinformation, Putin stooge.,
Billy, in this conflict there are no good guys and bad guys, there are only bad guys. Ukraine is not lily white and an oasis of democracy with the big bad bear to its East. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt nations on earth and has never been democratic in the Western (US/UK) sense of the word, something that took well over 500 years to become truly established (from the signing of the Magna Carta in 2013 to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, even though less than half the population and only one gender were able to vote at the time!). If the Ukrainians were not Europeans and looked like us, and if this conflict didn’t involve the Russian bogeyman, I would bet you would not be particularly exercised by the current conflict.
This is a bad faith comparison. Ukraine is becoming less corrupt and more democratic; there are regular elections with a real choice. Russia is going in precisely the opposite direction and has been now for nearly 20 years, so that it is now a full on dictatorship. Does Zelensky have his political opponents or journalists murdered, including in foreign cities?
I find it somewhat bizarre that you end up making a ‘woke’ point. We live on the European – if you like Eurasian – continent and Russia considers itself at war with us! If that doesn’t make the situation more pertinent to Britain than the situation in Africa, I don’t know what would. It has actually killed a British citizen by recklessly using a deadly toxin in Salisbury. Any case there might have been for a ‘reasonable’ Russia under its current leadership has been completely exploded by this full scale Hitlerite invasion.
What has Zelensky done to warrant being called a bad guy? Or why would you label the thousands of Ukrainians desperately fighting to repel a foreign invasion of their homeland as bad guys?
The whole of Central America has to take into consideration how Washington will react when choosing their policies – access to grant aid, sanctions, gun-running, backing of rebel forces, and invasion are all tools that have been used by the US to ensure compliance with US foreign policy. Even the UK has to take into consideration the ire of the French when setting its fishing policies, or the need to protect the EU customs union when setting its border policies.
The big difference is that Britain hasn’t invaded either Ireland or France and killed thousands of people as a result of their disputes you mentioned
According to the Irish prime minister. Micheal Martin Back in 2016 in speech in Ireland’s parliament. He said he wants nothing to do with the backward idea of Sovereignty. Which members of my family fought and died for. So are the Ukrainians fighting for the EU so they can decide their domestic and foreign policy. Or for real sovereignty and neutrality. Just like Ireland once was.
The Ukrainians seem to think they would have more freedom and sovereignty as members of the EU than as ‘associates’ of Putins Russia. In this I believe they are correct.
Whilst I’m no fan of the EU and voted to leave it, you can’t compare it to the situation in Ukraine.
In my view the EU interferes far too much in a countries domestic politics and dies remove an element of a nations sovereignty, however the key difference is that it’s a voluntary union that it’s members are free to leave as the UK has proven. It’s completely different to having your countries policy’s dictated by your neighbour at gunpoint as Russia is trying to do
I have asked you this before with no reply…. What would you do as the situation stands and given what you know now – if you have been reading some of the recent fine essays depicting the complexity of the situation in Ukraine.
Ultimately it’s not my decision. If the Ukrainians decide they want to fight to preserve their democracy and be able to dictate their own domestic and foreign policy rather than being a subordinate of Moscow then the west should carry on in the manner they are of supplying weapons and applying economic pressure on Putin. If they decide they’re happy to jettison Crimea and the eastern regions that have effectively been annexed by Putin then again that decision should be respected. However if Putin decides to bring them into the dirt and force his will onto the population against their wishes then Russia should remain out in the cold.
I wouldn’t put foreign boots on the ground but I don’t see why the west should let a tyrant like Putin do as he pleases with no consequences either
Very well put
I don’t really understand your question. The Ukrainians are fighting to be able to make their own decisions as a sovereign nation. What they choose to do with that power, be it join NATO, the EU or even Russia is entirely up to them
…by the logic displayed in this article, having decided to leave the EU – and as by far the larger power – the UK would be entitled to interfere in Ireland to impose co-operation on them in respect of cross-border trade…presumably by invading them if necessary..!
Mad…
Frankly, some sort of partition where the big majority ethnic Russian parts unite with Russia and the rest remains as a stable, united, Western-aligned Ukraine seems far more sustainable.
If you leave any of these areas in the Ukraine, Putin or whoever comes next will exploit them to destabilise Ukraine (following AH’s late 1930s playbook).
I’d go further and get the Russians in “Transdnistria” (another fake and totally corrupt Russian “state”) resettled within Russia or on the Russian border. And ideally do something about the Kaliningrad exclave (effectively stolen by Russia in 1945).
Population movements like these are a last resort. But this was done on a huge scale after WWII (Poland and Ukraine both shifted a long way west, the Benes Decrees expelled Germans from Czechoslovakia, East Prussia disappeared).
There is no way Ukraine will accept being neutral now. Dream on.
Great post.
If Russia proposed some discussion about referendums in Russian majority areas before invading and it was rejected out of hand I would had some, albeit small, sympathy with Russia view.
Problem with resettlement is that Russia doesn’t want it and probably most of Russians in other countries do not want either.
I spoke to few Russians in London.
They turned out to be citizens of Baltic States with freedom of movement and work in EU.
Do you imagine them wanting to be part of vodka fuelled frozen wastelands of Russia.
It doesn’t mean Putin will not try to use them to destabilize Baltic States.
Russia is huge and depopulating.
So lets test Putin and offer all the poor downtrodden Russian resettlement grants.
Very enlightening, and refreshingly clear analysis of what has happened. Not sure his proposals for alternative scenarios hold water though. Ukraine should have made a new nation that united all Ukrainians, regardless of language or allegiance to Russia? They should, of course, But realistically, how were they to build a Ukrainian nation without pushing the Ukrainian language or a Ukrainian version of history, and while maintaining soviet monuments and submitting their church to the Moscow Patriarchate? All in the face of a large minority whose primary allegiance was to Russia, and a strong and meddlesome neighbour who wanted to control them and did not think they had a right to exist in the first place? How realistic is it that Russia – well helped by pro-Russian Ukrainians – would ever have stopped meddling, or indeed have accepted less than full control? Finland was very much under the USSR thumb – and they were not seen as ‘really Russians’ or a crucial part of Russia’s imperial mythology. Nor did they have a Russian-speaking minority.
If he is right, maybe we should see this as yet another post-imperial inter-population scuffle, like the Habsburgs or Ottomans. There have been many, when peoples once united under a despotic empire had to form new nation states, and national feeling could not be made to match the geographical and political borders. If so, maybe partition and population exchange really is unavoidable.
It is notable that the author is very exercised about the pro-western Ukrainians “lock[ing] in its preferences against internal opposition by sacrificing Ukrainian national sovereignty to supranational organisations“, but does not even mention that renouncing ties with the EU and building them with Russia would equally (and much more strongly) lock in the preferences of the pro-Russian faction and sacrifice Ukrainian national sovereignity to Moscow. The final question remains: How much subjugation to Moscow does the author think that Ukraine must accept, in the name of great-power politics. And what does he propose if the Ukrainians are unwilling to accept it?
Read some of the pre-2013 history. Ukrainian politics has a strong influence of oligarchs and money men both overtly and behind the scenes – control of gas, pipelines, metallurgy industry where personal interests and local fiefdoms take priorities ahead of what we might see as western-style politics of principles. Yanukovych’s choice of Russia over EU was at least in part because Russia was offering more money (€610m from the EU versus $15bn from the Russians). Personal interests also spilled over into Ukrainian business interests in Washington, as well as Russia. Rich and powerful people who were used to buying the politics, politicians and justice that they wanted.
I do not doubt that you are right – you know more than I do anyway. But is it not still the case that “renouncing ties with the EU and building them with Russia would […] lock in the preferences of the pro-Russian faction and sacrifice Ukrainian national sovereignty to Moscow“?
It’s a poor question, unless you can also believe the converse – that Euromaidan “locked in the preferences of the pro-US faction and sacrificed Ukrainian national sovereignty to Washington” – same equivalence (and before you say the US wouldn’t take advantage like that, remember VP Biden threatening post-Maidan Ukraine to make them change their chief prosecutor).
If Ukraine had gone through with the Russian deal it would probably have been sovereign like other CIS states, but in the Russian sphere of influence, rather than sovereign but in the US sphere. Given the history it would also probably have drifted towards dictatorship and liable to strongman politics like Belarus or Kazakhstan, but still sovereign.
I can believe the converse. From the Ukrainian point of view I would say the two choices were fairly symmetrical – you choose a side. It is the article that only mentions the loss of sovereignty on one side.
You seem to be saying that choosing the Russian side would have led Ukraine to become like Belarus – run by a dictator in hock to the Kremlin, and playing host to the Russian army as required. I would call that a puppet state, even if it is technically sovereign (like East Germany was). I would also argue that choosing the US/EU side would give rather more real freedom of movement, i.e. sovereignty, as well as the chance of a nicer political system. More to the point, the Ukrainian majority seem to think so.
So, are you saying that the choice for Ukraine was between becoming like Belarus and being invaded? And that the west should have promoted the Belarus option, because nothing better was available? Or did you see another choice for Ukraine?
The “So, are you are saying…?” ploy.
How Ukraine would have turned out had the pro-Russia deal survived is an empty hypothetical. Putin wouldn’t have invaded Crimea, and so the West would still believe they could work with him. If you read articles from before and after Feb 2014 you can see how vilified Putin became post-Crimea, compared to earlier pragmatism – western analysts didn’t believe he would invade until it happened. So no Euromaidan, no Crimea and complete different view of, and relationship with, Russia and states within the Russia orbit.
No ploy intended, I was just trying to nail down where we disagreed.
How Ukraine would have turned out may be hypothetical, but it is not empty. If we are arguing that we ought to have accommodated Russia’s security interests earlier, and that includes having Ukraine make its deal with Russia, surely it is only fair to consider what would likely have happened in that case. After a minimum of required reading (Wikipedia), I’ll admit that the Maidan seems both murkier and more violent than it showed on Netflix. I am not normally in favour of revolutionary street demonstrations. But for all that I am sure both the US, Russia, and various oligarchs did what pushing they could, surely we must admit that this was an Ukrainian decision. Also that it took a remarkable support from civil society to achieve that result. Even as legitimate president with the army, police, and a large fraction of the country behind him, Yanukovich was not able to carry the country with him to make that deal with Russia, in the face of a (mainly?) unarmed protest.
As for Putin, the west believed they could work with him because they thought he was willing to stay within the normal collaborative rules. Once he proved that he would go to war to gain territory, that was gone. But I see no reason to believe that he would not have shown his true colours at some point even if he had been accommodated at the beginning.
You’re only just reading about this stuff on Wikipedia, and yet you believe you know what Putin’s ‘true colours’ and motivations are…
We are none of us foreign ministers here. I claim no particular expertise, so judge me on my words. I would say that judging from Russias actions in Chechenya, Belarus, Crimea, Luhansk, and Ukraine, not to mention what Putin is actually saying himself, it seems highly probable that he would demand very close control over his neighbours ni any case, and would use violence if necessary to achieve it. But if you have a different or more precise idea, I am happy to learn from you (I already have, a bit). In fact, I keep asking what people think would be a realistic alternative to the current mess – without hearing much in the way of precise answers so far.
Russia offered cut price gas.
Yes, because Russia has nothing else to offer to civilized people.
Apart from other exports like violence, dictatorship, misery and poverty.
You probably still think there are bears on the streets, and everybody is playing balalayka and drinking vodka. Stay with that delusion! Only problem is that you pay for it every time you’re on a gas station (1.95 in Beglum vs 0.39 in Moscow).
A war unleashed without provocation, in which civilian populations are targeted, is not due to betrayal by anyone other than the tyrant who gave the orders to attack. Trying to rationalise such savagery legitimises Putin’s illegitimate, monstrous acts.
Well, I support the West and would infinitely prefer to live in it rather than the alternative autocracies and totalitarians. I tend to side with people seeking free societies, rather than our adversaries. The writer seems to swallow Russian propaganda hook line and sinker. Putin does not accept Ukraine’s right to exist, that is the fundamental issue here. He has stated this clearly in terms, a rather crucial point that the writer (deliberately?) overlooks.
Could anyone believe that a free sovereign nation should not be permitted to join a supranational trading body, such as the EU in any conceivable ‘rules-based order’? Or perhaps prohibited from leaving the Russian sponsored autocratic alternative, the EEU? It would be similar to the US being able to veto Brexit; most US administrations would much rather have Britain in it than outside.
And of course it goes well beyond that: Russia has launched attacks on Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and now a full scale invasion. NATO attacks on Russia – precisely zero. I have yet to hear any explanation as to why this in any meaningful sense differs from Hitler’s expansionism 80 years ago. He, as we may recall, also had a bucketful of paranoid justifications, decided all German speakers should be, whether they liked it or not, united with the Reich, and that Germany had an absolute right to expand at the cost of its neighbours, whatever treaties it had previously signed up to.
Yes, I asked the same question on this and other forums and no answer.
Why are we surprised?
There is no difference between what Putin wants and what Hitler wanted in Czechoslovakia.
What is completely missed by most observers is that Maidan was largely a product of events inside Russia in 2012.
Putin’s re-election after Medvedev meant that the former was never going to step down. It was obvious to everyone that Russia was ceasing to be a democratic state. Indeed it is now essentially a totalitarian state where even the slightest opposition is ruthlessly suppressed. That is no accident, nor the fault of the West. It is the logical result in any authoritarian regime when it encounters opposition.
“Cloud-castle” ideas about “real politik” simply miss the point that emperors and kings no longer run Europe. Certainly, larger nations can influence their smaller neighbors.
But taking them over is another matter–as the relationship between the US and Cuba illustrates very eloquently.
Could anyone believe that a free sovereign nation should not be permitted to join a supranational trading body, such as the EU? Or perhaps to be prohibited from leaving the Russian sponsored autocratic alternative, the EEU? It would be similar to the US being able to veto Brexit, as most US administrations would much rather have Britain in it than outside.
If I’m not mistaken the US tried that with Brexit. Recall when Obama said, I believe on a trip to the UK just before the actual Brexit vote, that the UK would be placed at the back of the queue in terms of negotiating any trade agreement with the US. If that does not represent the US not trying to influence the internal politics of a sovereign state with strong arm tactics, what is?
I remember that well.
Come off it. ‘Influence’, yes, but ‘strong arm tactics’??
Russias reaction to the EU-Ukraine association agreement was a devastating trade blockade (the kind of thing that Johan Strauss might call ‘economic carpet bombing’?), which caused Yanukovich to refuse the EU deal and go for a Russia deal instead. When Euromaidan forced him to give up on that and rebuffed the Russia deal, Russia reacted by conquering first the Crimea, then the Donbas, and now launching a full-scale war.
This may be a difference of degree, but I see a world of difference between dragging your feet on a new trade deal and launching a full-scale military invasion. What happened to the Johan Strauss who believed in realpoitik and wanted us to respect Russias ‘security interests’ at the expense of Ukraine?
Oh, it is you again with your pro Russia lies.
Yes, Obama expressed an opinion, which was wrong.
However, USA did not invade to enforce that opinion.
If you don’t see difference between that and Russia invasion of Ukraine you are Russian stooge.
But we know that already, do not we?
This is one of those ‘sensible’ articles that looks like serious analysis, yet fails to grasp what is driving Russian actions and the palpable shift in internal Ukrainian politics post-2014 (i.e. the collapse of the “pro-Russian” vote). I cannot take any analysis seriously that acts as if Maidan was driven by EU/US external meddling rather than the death of so many protestors & the imprisonment of opposition figures.
Most of the Ukrainian nationalists I know are actually Russian speakers, and anyone portraying this as Ukrainian speakers oppressing Russian speakers needs to explain why solidly Russian speaking Kharkiv greeted Russian troops not by throwing flowers at them but with NLAW ambushes.
Outstanding analysis. And unfortunately, yes, the only way out is to concede to the major Putin’s demands as to neutrality and territorial losses in order to keep Ukraine’s sovereignty. Can they trust Putin’s guarantees? No, but what’s the alternative?
I will wait for Zelenskyy to declare Finnish an official language of Ukraine.
This sounds right. Post Soviet detente wrecked by Western hubris, seasoned with oligarchic greed and ethnic diversity leveraged by geopolitical realpolitik.