The Russia-Ukraine crisis has not only shaken up the entire geo-political ecosystem, but also pushed the players involved in the conflict – both directly and indirectly – to contemplate, and even modify, their stances on the issue of national security in the world influenced by regional groupings.

The recent armed conflict or “military operation”, which is causing loss of lives on both the sides, is a by-product of something that has been brewing on the side-lines of the decades-long effort by two prominent powerhouses of the world since the apparent conclusion of the Cold War.

United States and Russia, in their pursuit of securing regional dominance, and more importantly, in their quest for obtaining stronghold over the world affairs have left no stone unturned to weaken the influence of the opposing side. The result of this quest, you might wonder, is collateral damage. More often than not, it is some third country which suffers the trauma due to worsening of relations between these two ‘superpowers’.

The US blames Russia for unsettling rule-based order in Eurasia, while the former somehow forgets its own doings in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and lately in Afghanistan. Russia accuses US of expansionism through enlarging the scope of NATO, but overlooks its own operations in Georgia and Crimea.

‘To curtail nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation’, ‘to end dictatorship’, ‘to counter terrorism’, ‘to safeguard shared history and heritage’, ‘to protect territorial integrity and autonomy’, ‘to strengthen democracy’ are some of the different reasons established in the past to justify such acts of intrusion. However, the things that remain common in the aftermath is the loss of innocent lives, and displacement of a substantial number of people who were lucky (or privileged) enough to survive in the first place.

I am not questioning the validity of the above-mentioned reasons. The importance these reasons hold is the consequence of the policies and aspirations of the nations in question. I want to, however, ponder upon some of the questions stated below.

• Do these armed conflicts serve their purpose to (re)store peace, balance, and order?
• If yes, then do the ends justify the means?
• How important is it for a country to be self-sufficient, at least in the domain of ‘national security’?
• If geo-politics is mostly about business, is there an economic angle to these crises?

Issue at hand

The issue between Russia and Ukraine is a complex one where different factors like history, regional groupism, geo-politics, domestic politics, and economy come into play. There are many parties to the conflict as well, but there are two nations – United States and Russia – that are the main players, and are mainly responsible for what is happening.

It seems like the bone of contention is the expansion of NATO-base. The NATO, which started as a 12-member security alliance in 1949, has been admitting more member countries since then. It has added members on five occasions in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020.

Much to Russia’s dismay, countries in its ‘sphere of influence’ have been joining the American-led association. Among countries that border Russia, Norway is a founding member of the NATO, while Poland joined in 1999, and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined in 2004. Among the five countries mentioned, the countries joined in 2004 were a part of the erstwhile USSR, and Poland was considered to be a satellite state of the Soviet Union.

Moreover, NATO keeping its capital and military infrastructure in the form of air bases, training centres, joint warfare centres, and multinational battalion groups in four of the five above mentioned countries has been raising eyebrows in Moscow.

Therefore, the aspirations of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to join the EU and NATO have deepened the cause of concern in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s mind.

-------------------------

Read in detail about Operation Ganga: A ray of hope for Indians stuck in war-torn Ukraine  

-------------------------

Just two months ago, while reiterating that Russia wants no further eastward expansion of the NATO, Putin accused that the West is “coming with its missiles to our doorstep”, and asked, “How would Americans react if we put our missiles on the border between Canada and the US….or put our missiles on the border of Mexico and the United States?”

The issue of placing missiles in a rival country’s backyard brings back scary memories from 1962, when the Cold War had put the world on the brink of a nuclear confrontation. Yes! I am referring to the Cuban missile crisis, in which the then head of the USSR Nikita Khrushchev agreed to put ballistic missiles installations in Cuba, which is an island nation located just some miles away from US’ Florida. In response, the then US President John F. Kennedy put a maritime blockade on Cuba, and stated that American forces would take hold of “offensive weapons and associated material” if USSR tries to deliver them to Cuba.

The Military Operation

In the early hours of Thursday the 24th, in his address to the people of Russia, President Putin announced a “special military operation” against Ukraine. Speaking about the NATO’s eastward expansion, Putin said “they (NATO) simply conned us”, so “we have been left with no other option to protect Russia and our people, but for the one that we will be forced to use today.”

This address came just three days after Moscow took the decision to “recognise the independence and sovereignty of the DPR (Donetsk People's Republic) and the LPR (Luhansk People's Republic).” The issue of recognising DPR and LPR can be fairly understood by reading about the Minsk Agreement and Minsk Conundrum.

After surrounding Ukraine from Belarus in the north, Crimea in the South, and Russia in the East, the Russian troops started making inroads towards major cities. According to several media reports, the Russian forces have reached Kharkiv, which is the second largest city in Ukraine, and have started to encircle Kyiv, capital of Ukraine. As the Russian army continue on foot towards Kyiv, it is getting support from its air force, which has claimed ‘air superiority’ according Russia's Ministry of Defence. This came at a time when both sides were attempting to hold discussions in Belarus.

As the military operation started, several countries from the West announced sanctions on Russia as a retaliatory measure. The economic sanctions involve cutting Russian banks from the financial net across Europe, and freezing the assets of President Putin and his Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov.

A few “select” number of Russian banks will be removed from the SWIFT international payments system to “ensure that these banks are disconnected from the international financial system and harm their ability to operate globally,” the US, UK, Canada, and EU said in their joint statement on Saturday.

The whole operation, especially in the case of Ukraine, begs the question of a country being self-independent when it comes to national security. A country having a nuclear arsenal deters any other nation to launch an attack on it. However, under Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arms. According to the deal, Ukraine de-nuclearised itself, and in return, was promised that US, UK, and Russia will not use force against it, and would protect the former in the event of any threat. What an irony, yes!

Ukraine In-or-Out NATO; why does it matter?

Now that we have a fair knowledge of what is going on, it is time to try to understand the possible reasons behind it.

It is the combination of these three powers through which a country establishes its hegemony – military muscle, economic strength, and soft power. Soft power is basically the ability to influence other nations’ preferences through appeal and attraction.

The two major countries, US and Russia, have ample military muscle, and to be honest, Ukraine does not have much to offer in that regard. Therefore, for the sake of discussion, let us focus on the last two.

Economic Reasons

Ukraine has reserves of many natural resources like uranium, oil and gas, iron, manganese, among others. With 46,000 metric tons, Ukraine is the seventh largest in the world in terms of recoverable reserves of uranium ores.

When it comes to LNG, Ukraine’s Natural gas reserves are estimated at 5.4 trillion cubic metres (tcm). Out of this, as of late 2019, proven reserves of natural gas stands at 1.1 tcm, second only to Norway’s known resources of 1.53 tcm in Europe. Moreover, these reserves remain largely untapped.

It also holds 400 million barrels of proven oil reserves as of the beginning of 2021, but the country only produces about 74,000 barrels per day of petroleum and other liquids. Therefore, much like that of gas, oil producing potential also remains untapped.

Ukraine, moreover, is an important transit country for the transportation of gas. A substantial amount of gas, which goes from Russia to several European nations, passes through Ukraine.

The Donbas region is known for its large coal reserves, and heavy mining and steel-producing capacity. It has extractable reserves estimated at around 10 billion tons. It is inhabited by only 10 percent of the country’s population, and contributes around 20 percent of the Ukrainian GDP and quarter of Ukraine’s exports.

Ukraine joining the EU would open up the gates for the Western nations to establish an economic jurisdiction over the former, something which will not sit well with Russia; and Moscow having more autonomy over the natural resources in Ukraine would give an edge to Russia to control the oil and gas trade to the European nations, which are heavily dependent on Ukraine for its gas supply transit.

Political and Geo-Political Reasons

Politics and economics go hand-in-hand; there is no good politics without the backing of a sound economic structure and vice versa.

Russia is the primary exporter of Liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe via pipeline. It exports about 23.3 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) of LNG, of which about 72% goes to the largest European economies. To put it into perspective, the worldwide LNG export market is expected to be at roughly 53 bcfd in 2022. Thus, Russia holds a solid bargaining chip.

Russia might want to use this bargaining chip as a measure to create fault lines in the unity of the West and EU. This can even dent the confidence that the US commands in its sphere of influence, and that too at time when Washington is losing its influence in the international politics. We also have a Europe which is seeking recovery, both in social and economic terms, after facing the brunt of the pandemic, which has rendered it a bit vulnerable.  

25% of energy consumption by Germany, EU’s largest economy, is fulfilled through natural gas. It is, moreover, dependent of Russia for around 55% of its gas supply. While Germany have halted the work on the upcoming Nord Stream 2, Nord Stream 1 is still operational.

Italy, likewise, is also a major importer of Russian LNG with about 41% of its gas imports coming from the latter. At least 500 Italian businesses have operations in Russia, and bilateral investments are worth $8 billion. Moreover, Italy became the first G7 country to become a part of Belt and Road initiative of China, which has recently joined Russia to oppose the NATO expansion.

The cracks are beginning to show, and Moscow would like to exploit this situation.

Though, the Western nations have imposed various economic sanctions on Russia, they still continue to import the oil and gas from the latter. The question is, what happens when (or if) Russia decides to stop the exports?

Other European nations like Austria, France, Hungary, Poland, among others rely heavily on Russian imports to meet their energy demand.

A friend in need is a friend indeed!?

On the other hand, nations like UK, US, and Canada maintain different positions. UK meet about half of its energy requirement through domestic production, and importing the rest from Norway and Qatar.

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau recently has announced that Canada has banned oil imports from Russia. Canada, however, is the fourth largest producer of oil and can afford to hold such position.

"While Canada has imported very little amounts in recent years, this measure sends a powerful message," Trudeau stated. 

The move is not expected to have much of an impact on the Canadian economy. Canada has not imported any crude oil from Russia since 2019, according to its Natural Resources Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson.

United States is also continuing to import crude oil from Russia, despite placing economic sanctions on the latter. A US State Department official said on Friday that Biden administration will not sanction Russian crude oil because that would harm consumer in US, and not Putin.

“If we target the oil and gas sector for Putin, and in this case the Russian energy establishment, then prices would spike. Perhaps he would sell only half of its products, but for double the price,” said the State Department’s senior energy security advisor, Amos Hochstein, in an interview to Bloomberg.

Can imports from US, Norway, and Qatar to EU countries substitute that from Russia?

“The volume of gas needed by the EU cannot be replaced by anyone unilaterally, without disturbing supplies to other regions around the world,” Qatar’s Energy Minister Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi said in a statement.

Even if the countries operate on maximum capacity and finds a way to produce adequate amount of oil and gas resources, the infrastructure needed to transfer such volumes would take years to get completed.

According to some estimates by experts in this field, EU countries would have to pay about four times more of what they are paying right now if Russia disrupts the supply.

Therefore, the question arises, if countries like US and Canada are prioritising the needs of the people of their country, why will European nations, which are heavily dependent on Russia, not do the same?

Domestic Politics

Now that I have talked about the geo-political reasons, let me shed some light on domestic politics of US and UK as well.

Britain PM Boris Johnson's office came under fire after an email emerged showing his private secretary inviting people to a lawn party at 10 Downing Street when the rest of the country was under a strict Covid-19 lockdown. Following this, many senior members of Boris’ Conservative Party have condemned Jonhson’ act, and the pressure on him to resign is mounting by each passing day.

Current Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, and former UK Defence Minister, Tobias Ellwood of the Conservative Party has submitted a letter of no confidence in the PM, amid the ongoing row over lockdown parties in No 10.

According to BBC, there are at least 17 Tory MPs who have submitted letters of no confidence.

On the other hand, the fortunes are almost the same for the US President Joe Biden, who is seeing his approval rating recording a new low. Right from the start of the chaotic US’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden has been facing heat in domestic politics. 

According to a new Marist National Poll, Biden's approval rating had fallen to a new low of 43 per cent as on September 2021. Majority of the Americans believe that Biden’s foreign policy is inefficient, and a substantial portion of civil society in US believes that US’ role in Afghanistan is a “failure”.

Post the Afghanistan debacle, and after completion of first year in office, Biden’s rating did not show a positive sign mostly due to his administration’s failure in handling the Covid situation, and due to US registering highest inflation in 40 years. According to a CBS poll, 65% of respondents said that Biden administration is not focussed enough on reducing the burden of increasing prices.

Even the most recent polls show no signs improvement in the approval of Biden as the President. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, US President’s popularity took a beating, with 55% saying they disapprove of what Biden has done. To make matters worse for Biden, his approval ratings achieved a new low of just 37% as on February 2022.

When it comes to Russia, while most people approve the sanctions imposed, 47% also said that they disapprove the handling of crisis to date.

It seems with dwindling support from people in their own nations, both Boris and Biden need a boost in their ratings to advance their political career. Just thinking out loud here, is there anything else that unites people more than threat of a common enemy?

Take the case of Mao Zedong in the aftermath of the Great Chinese Famine between 1959 and 1961, when more than 30 million people starved to death. What came after? The Sino-India war of 1962, which united the people of China against one common enemy, India.

Conclusion

Multilateralism is falling short as the geo-political world around us is evolving rapidly. Since long, the power was concentrated in hands of a few nations, mostly from the West, but regional groupism has emerged strongly. This is ultimately pushing us towards a new world order in which the world is more ‘multipolar’. This rebalancing is driven by shared values and comforts which is showing signs of a strong plurilateralism.

Just think, who benefits the most if Ukraine joins the NATO? Is it Ukraine or some other nation(s)? Reaping the benefits or not, Ukraine is surely paying the price of the continued fight between United Stated and Russia. As I stated at the start of this opinion piece, collateral damage is result of this quest.

Views expressed are personal