By Tatsiana Kulakevich
U.S. President Joe Biden said on Jan. 19, 2022, that he thinks Russia will invade Ukraine, and cautioned Russian president Vladimir Putin that he “will regret having done it,” following months of building tension.
Russia has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along its border with Ukraine over the past several months.
In mid-January, Russia began moving troops into Belarus, a country bordering both Russia and Ukraine, in preparation for joint military exercises in February.
Putin has issued various security demands to the U.S. before he draws his military forces back. Putin’s list includes a ban on Ukraine from entering NATO, and agreement that NATO will remove troops and weapons across much of Eastern Europe.
There’s precedent for taking the threat seriously: Putin already annexed the Crimea portion of Ukraine in 2014.
Ukraine’s layered history offers a window into the complex nation it is today — and why it is continuously under threat. As an Eastern Europe expert, I highlight five key points to keep in mind.
What should we know about Ukrainians’ relationship with Russia?
Ukraine gained independence 30 years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has since struggled to combat corruption and bridge deep internal divisions.
Ukraine’s western region generally supported integration with Western Europe. The country’s eastern side, meanwhile, favored closer ties with Russia.
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine peaked in February 2014, when violent protesters ousted Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in what is now known as the Revolution of Dignity.
Around the same time, Russia forcibly annexed Crimea. Ukraine was in a vulnerable position for self-defense, with a temporary government and unprepared military.
Putin immediately moved to strike in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The armed conflict between Ukrainian government forces and Russia-backed separatists has killed over 14,000 people.
Unlike its response to Crimea, Russia continues to officially deny its involvement in the Donbas conflict.
What do Ukrainians want?
Russia’s military aggression in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea have galvanized public support for Ukraine’s Western leanings.
Ukraine’s government has said it will apply for European Union membership in 2024, and also has ambitions to join NATO.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who came to power in 2019, campaigned on a platform of anti-corruption, economic renewal and peace in the Donbas region.
In September 2021, 81% of Ukrainians said they have a negative attitude about Putin, according to the Ukrainian news site RBC-Ukraine. Just 15% of surveyed Ukrainians reported a positive attitude towards the Russian leader.
Why is Putin threatening to invade Ukraine?
Putin’s decision to engage in a military buildup along Ukraine is connected to a sense of impunity. Putin also has experience dealing with Western politicians who champion Russian interests and become engaged with Russian companies once they leave office.
Western countries have imposed mostly symbolic sanctions against Russia over interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections and a huge cyberattack against about 18,000 people who work for companies and the U.S. government, among other transgressions.
Without repercussions, Putin has backed Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko’s brutal crackdown on mass protests in the capital city, Minsk.
In several instances, Putin has seen that some leading Western politicians align with Russia. These alliances can prevent Western countries from forging a unified front to Putin.
Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, for example, advocated for strategic cooperation between Europe and Russia while he was in office. He later joined Russian oil company Rosneft as chairman in 2017.
Other senior European politicians promoting a soft position toward Russia while in office include former French Prime Minister François Fillon and former Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl. Both joined the boards of Russian state-owned companies after leaving office.
What is Putin’s end game?
Putin views Ukraine as part of Russia’s “sphere of influence” – a territory, rather than an independent state. This sense of ownership has driven the Kremlin to try to block Ukraine from joining the EU and NATO.
In January 2021, Russia experienced one of its largest anti-government demonstrations in years. Tens of thousands of Russians protested in support of political opposition leader Alexei Navalny, following his detention in Russia. Navalny had recently returned from Germany, where he was treated for being poisoned by the Russian government.
Putin is also using Ukraine as leverage for Western powers lifting their sanctions. Currently, the U.S. has various political and financial sanctions in place against Russia, as well as potential allies and business partners to Russia.
A Russian attack on Ukraine could prompt more diplomatic conversations that could lead to concessions on these sanctions.
The costs to Russia of attacking Ukraine would significantly outweigh the benefits.
While a full scale invasion of Ukraine is unlikely, Putin might renew fighting between the Ukrainian army and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Why would the US want to get involved in this conflict?
With its annexation of Crimea and support for the Donbas conflict, Russia has violated the Budapest Memorandum Security Assurances for Ukraine, a 1994 agreement between the U.S., United Kingdom and Russia that aims to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for its commitment to give up its nuclear arsenal.
Putin’s threats against Ukraine occur as he is moving Russian forces into Belarus, which also raises questions about the Kremlin’s plans for invading other neighboring countries.
Military support for Ukraine and political and economic sanctions are ways the U.S. can make clear to Moscow that there will be consequences for its encroachment on an independent country. The risk, otherwise, is that the Kremlin might undertake other military and political actions that would further threaten European security and stability.
Tatsiana Kulakevich is Assistant Professor of instruction at School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies, affiliate professor at the Institute on Russia, at the University of South Florida.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Justsayin says
I guess Ukraine did not get their return on investment with hiring sleepy Joe’s son.
David Kehoe says
There is sooo much more to this than you write. To me, this is all about the USA military industrial complexes industry. Ever since bumbiling biden withdrew the USA from Afghan, there is no urgent needs to waste countless tax dollars are military equipment, and those companies need and want our tax dollars!!!
Also, take the position of Russia for a moment , they do not want NATO or Nato weapons on its border. How would we react if Mexico formed an alliance with China and decided to put nuclear weapons on our border, it would not sit well with us.
Lastly, there is NO WAY our troops should shed blood to defend a corrupt nation that thought is was a wonderful idea to hire Hunter Biden as a board member for their oil industry while he had zero experience in the oil industry
C.J. says
“Ever since bumbiling biden withdrew the USA from Afghan..” Remember who negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the date of withdrawal, and executed the agreement, etc. IT WAS NOT BIDEN. It as your darling Trump! Sure the withdrawal was clumsy, it was Trump’s military regime who executed it, I’m sure you could do better with less that 6 months ….
David says
I do not remember the exact date that President Trump negotiated and most importantly, no Americans were killed. I do believe April/May time frame. If I recall your hero, BUMBILING BIDEN, let that date pass. Biden owns it after that date so do not put any blame on President Trump. It’s all on your hero bumbiling binden including the 13 Servicemen that were murdered under binden watch. Facts really do count CJ
Ray W. says
Wow! Talk about another example of a post by a longstanding member of a select group of uninformed FlaglerLive commenters. David Kehoe misses the mark on this one. Once again, a commenter posts valid points without understanding that validity only gets one into the argument; he conflates validity with competence and reliability.
The Ukraine was long considered an integral part of the Russian Empire (Potemkin led the Russian effort in the late 18th century to add the Crimea and surrounding areas to the Russian Empire) and it was always considered an integral part of the Soviet nation. It was not a part of what the Soviet Union considered as a collection of buffer states between it and the West. The Tsarist Russian state attempted to dilute the power of the native Ukrainian peoples by repopulating portions of the Ukraine with Russians. The Soviet Union during Stalin’s early years attempted to starve the native Ukrainian peoples into submission and furthered the earlier Tsarist effort to introduce even more Russian speaking peoples into the region. When the Soviet Union disbanded, the Ukraine left the former Union not because the new Russian state considered it an expendable buffer state, but because the new Russian state was too weak to stop the Ukraine from declaring independence. The Ukraine served as the breadbasket to the Soviet Union, even to the extent that the Nazi’s so desired the productive farmlands in the Ukraine that they focused part of their invasion on an attempt to capture that year’s wheat crop right at the time that the crop ripened and was ready to harvest. The retreating Soviet armies burned the entire crop to deny it to the Nazis. In short, the Russian Federation has always wanted the Ukraine back in the fold.
David Kehoe’s point about the American military industrial complex has little to do with the Russian Federations desires, although his argument has long served as a false flag argument. In 1994, America was but one of many nations that agreed to defend the fledgling Ukrainian government and its peoples from future Russian invasion in exchange for the Ukraine selling its stockpile of nuclear weapons, which at that time was its primary defense against any future Russian aggression. For over 25 years, each new congressional term has produced legislation providing monetary and military support to the Ukraine pursuant to that agreement. Yes, the military-industrial complex has benefitted from these decisions, but the idea that this is “all about” that complex borders on the absurd. The three Baltic states also know what is like to be part of a region that the Russian Federation still considers as within its national borders and they, too, greatly fear the possibility of Russian aggression.
David Kehoe’s point about the Russian Federation not wanting NATO or NATO’s weapons on its border presupposes that the Russian Federation thinks its border starts at the northernmost edge of the Ukraine. The Russian Federation considers the southern borders of the Ukraine, i.e., the shores of the Black Sea, as its national border. The extension of NATO into the Ukraine would be, to the Russian Federation, an invasion of its national territory.
David Kehoe’s point about not shedding American blood over this conflict is perhaps the best point he makes, although he greatly undermines his argument by his extraordinarily weak attempt to link the hiring of Hunter Biden to nationalist desires in this contested region. Hunter Biden is nothing more than a sideshow; his significance arises from the so-called conservative movement in America and nothing more.
In sum, David Kehoe, not for the first time nor likely for the last time, proves the point that a person can be barely right and spectacularly wrong at the same time.
Bartholomew says
Thank you Ray. It s nice to see an educated comment for a change. They seem to becoming rare.
Steve says
As if there were no Nepotism in the last Administration. Countless UnQualified Appointments including Family. Get over it move on
Joey says
Bidens 48 years of failures, I’m sure he can handle this in the worse way possible. This is what happens when people vote with the liberals propaganda news.
Steve says
Selective memory for the previous Administration is worse than amnesia. Mr lil small hands was caught up in his own self Importance. He and his followers are an orange stain nothing more
Michael Cocchiola says
I’m sure that Russia has Trump’s full support so why not invade a sovereign nation. Trump will make it right. Maybe if despite all rational thought Trump runs and wins, we’ll invade Greenland. Perfect for a scenic golf course.
A.j says
Yall say what you may, Joe Biden made a wise decision to bring our troops home. Why put them in harms way again? What would Lying Trump do? He and Putin were buddies, would not surprise me if Trump is partly behind the possible invasion. Just saying. Joe is a good President, I believe he will make the best decision. Go head Joe you are alright with me.
Justsayin says
Wow, I always wondered who the 33% approval people were.
JimBob says
Putting aside the anti-Biden vitriol so characteristically found in FL commentary, the fact remains Russia committed aggressive incursions into Ukraine throughout the Trump administration without any repercussions. Trump applauded and justified seizure of Crimea, all the while seeking to extend his personal brand into the Moscow real estate market. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have died in a new “Kholodmor” while Americans remain ignorant of that word’s meaning.
Concerned Citizen says
We don’t want to get into a conflict with Russia over the Ukraine.
Not long after I went into the Airforce we held Operation REFORGER. For those not in the know that’s Return Forces To Germany. The logistics of such an operation are mind boggling. Of course things are somewhat easier 20 years down the road. It’s still a major task to mobilize forces and get them halfway around the world. And Russia won’t give us the time we need.
I can remember seeing plans on a large scale invasion by Russia. Some of the outlook was less than positive. And Armor and Infantry tactics have come a long way. At any rate I’m hoping for a peaceful resolution. But time will tell. They seem hell bent on finding a reason to go in.
Geezer says
I watched Oliver Stone’s 2-part interview with Vladimir Putin recently and came away impressed with Mr. Putin.
The US and NATO have their hands full.
Where have you gone, John Fitzgerald Kennedy?