Connect with us

Eastern Europe

Ukrainian Crisis: Who Has the Upper Hand?

Published

on

The military operation in Ukraine raises the question of the balance of losses and gains of key participants, as well as global players. Such a balance has yet to be struck for Russia and Ukraine. Hostilities continue and a political settlement has not been reached, which means that it is still difficult to say to what extent each of the parties will be able to achieve the political goals for which a huge price has already been paid, both in human lives and in terms of enormous damage to the economy. The contours of the balance for global and regional players—the EU, the US, China, Japan, Iran and others are more clearly visible.

The European Union bears the most serious losses and costs. They are associated with the rupture of numerous trade and economic ties with Russia. The main challenge is the replacement of Russian oil, gas, metals and a number of other commodities on the European market. This process will require a serious concentration of resources and political will. In the next few years, it will affect the economic growth of the EU and the competitiveness of European industry. At the same time, the displacement of Russian raw materials, painful in itself, is a feasible task. For oil, this process can go faster, for gas, slower. Within the EU, there will be differences between the member states, as dependence on Russian raw materials is heterogeneous. However, the replacement of Russian goods in most areas, apparently, can be carried out over the course of several years. Regardless of how the Ukrainian crisis develops and what Russia’s foreign policy is, ousting the latter from EU trade will be a rather long-term process.

The EU today also bears the heaviest burden of dealing with Ukrainian refugees. The calculation is still difficult given the rapidly changing situation, but it is already clear that the number is in the millions. The EU countries are faced with the task of receiving, providing for, adapting, and possibly integrating migrants. Social spending in many countries of the Union will increase. However, here the European Union turns out to be a beneficiary in the medium term. The EU countries, especially Germany, have accumulated vast experience in working with migrant labour. Ukrainian migrants are culturally close to most, if not all, EU countries, in contrast to previous waves of migration from Islamic countries. They are more educated. They are less inclined to form closed diasporas, and they adapt and integrate more quickly. The EU economy is getting a rich demographic injection.

Most EU countries will actively increase defence spending. Such growth will not necessarily be proportional to the political subjectivity of the European Union. The EU remains a junior partner of NATO. However, the military-political role of individual member countries will grow significantly. Here again, Germany should be noted, as it has a high potential for increasing defence spending, modernising the army and developing its defence industry. The highly developed military-industrial complex of the EU countries receives a long-term gain.

You can also talk about how the European project itself wins, so to speak. In the face of Russia, it now receives a powerful consolidating factor that enhances internal discipline, nourishes identity and holds together the Eastern European flank.

The United States, at first glance, incurs significantly lower costs than the EU, although the rejection of Russian oil may lead to local difficulties and an increase in fuel prices. The main problems for Washington lie in other areas. The sharp escalation of confrontation with Russia is again diverting resources from the Asia-Pacific theatre. The United States will have to increase its military presence in Europe, which means that the concentration of resources on containing China is now declining. The United States is also anxious about the prospect of the Ukrainian crisis escalating into a war between NATO and Russia. This at the very least is fraught with the danger of nuclear escalation. Washington will have to simultaneously contain Moscow, but at the same time act within certain boundaries, fearing an escalation from now on. Controlling the intensity of the conflict and preventing it from escalating uncontrollably seems to be a key priority.

In other areas, the US is more likely to win.

The new quality of confrontation with Moscow makes it possible to significantly increase NATO’s internal discipline and achieve a more significant contribution of European countries to common security. Neither Trump, nor Obama, nor G. W. Bush could complete such a task before. Now it has been solved without a great amount of debate. Moreover, the further expansion of NATO is possible.

While membership in the organisation of neutral Sweden and Finland is not predetermined, the number of supporters of such a move within both countries has grown significantly. The possible accession of Finland to NATO will mean the projection of power on the entire Russian North-West border.

The need to divert resources to Europe, in theory, can also be used by the United States to its advantage. Washington and its allies have received carte blanche to deliver an unprecedentedly powerful blow to Russia’s economic and technological potential. There is no doubt that Russia will remain the most important military challenge for the US and the West. However, the economic base of the military potential is likely to be undermined by the prospect of further concentration on Asia.

The US energy sector wins. In the near future, it will receive a significant part of the European market. In addition, it will now be more convenient for the Americans to oust Russia from the world arms markets. China and India will remain major buyers, but competition for other markets will be more difficult for Moscow due to stronger US opposition.

The United States has accumulated a set of internal problems. The Russian factor once again makes it possible to at least partially consolidate Congress and society. However, the impact of the crisis on the 2024 elections is still highly uncertain.

China gets a lot of room for manoeuvre. Unlike the EU and the US, current costs for China will be minimal. Military and political pressure from Washington is declining. Given the large-scale anti-Russian sanctions, China can claim a significant part of the vacating Russian market. Russian energy resources will now be more accessible to China, and their price is likely to be much lower than before. However, there may be difficulties in the infrastructure plan for their delivery to the Chinese market. China is also becoming Russia’s most important financial partner, and such a partnership will asymmetrically favour China. Beijing is further strengthening stability on its northern and north-eastern borders.

Russia’s partnership with China is becoming uncontested. China has new opportunities for influence in Central Asia.

Based on the experience of sanctions against Russia, China will do significant work to improve its own economic security in the event of similar complications with the West. At the same time, the ongoing processes are still unlikely to lead to the emergence of a full-fledged Russian-Chinese military-political union. By all appearances, China will keep its distance and free hand.

For Japan, the balance of gains and losses in the short term is rather negative. The prospect of a peace treaty with Russia is becoming extremely vague. Even before the new phase of confrontation, it was clear that the negotiations had reached an impasse. There was not even a hint of any advancement, but the very theoretical possibility of such advancement remained. Since 2014, Tokyo has pursued a balanced and pragmatic policy, imposing symbolic sanctions, but maintaining the Russian market and constructive relations with the Russian leadership. After February 24, 2022, this concept gave way to solidarity with the actions of the US and the EU. Japan will suffer losses due to the loss of the Russian market and the replacement of Russian raw materials. However, they are not critical for Tokyo. The most important thing is that the aggravation of relations with Russia, as in the case with Germany, will become a significant incentive for the final revision of the post-war paradigm of the use of the armed forces. Japan will more confidently follow the path of regaining the status of a full-fledged military-political power. The solution to the problem of the “northern territories” will also increasingly be considered in a military manner.

India is the least affected by the current crisis. Delhi maintains a dialogue with Moscow and will resist attempts by third countries to influence military-technical cooperation. However, the position of lobbyists for Western arms manufacturers in the country may be strengthened. The rise of China against the background of the crisis is a problem for India. However, the changes can hardly be called fundamental.

The beneficiaries of the new phase of the Ukrainian crisis will also include a number of countries that are currently under heavy US sanctions. First and foremost, these include Venezuela and Iran. Washington may very well pursue at least a partial reduction in sanctions pressure in order to compensate for losses in the market resulting from the ban on Russian oil imports. With regard to Venezuela, the easing of sanctions is politically easier, compared to Iran. Ultimately, only the internal structure of the country is problematic, and the United States can temporarily turn a blind eye. Venezuelan heavy oil may well replace Russian oil in the US market. The Maduro government in this case will receive some respite and a breath of fresh air in the form of foreign exchange earnings.

With Iran, the situation is more complicated, since there we are talking about a military nuclear programme and a new version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that is, a multilateral process, of which Russia is also a participant. At the same time, technically, the United States may well allow Iranian oil into the world market without a new JCPOA. As an option, the Biden administration has the ability to allow a number of countries in Europe and Asia to purchase Iranian oil reinstating the exemptions Trump cancelled. The problem for the US will be that Iran will also get a breather and strengthen its negotiating position. In the future, this will cause pressure from the Republicans, who are opposed to deals with Tehran. However, amid Russian opposition, these differences may fade into the background. In any case, Iran has a chance to take advantage of the situation. Such a development of events precludes the formation of a coalition among countries under sanctions, which theoretically could include China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela. China will cooperate with all three, but not to the detriment of relations with the West.

All in all, the new stage of the Ukrainian crisis will have global consequences. For some, it will bring short and medium-term costs, and very significant ones. For many, however, it will create opportunities to increase their influence over the long term.

From our partner RIAC

RIAC Director of Programs, RIAC Member, Head of "Contemporary State" program at Valdai Discussion Club, RIAC member.

Continue Reading
Comments

Eastern Europe

Zelenskyy Could and Does Make Mistakes Too

Published

on

The war in Ukraine has transformed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from a rather weak leader to a world-renowned one who has become a household name. Now a celebrity president, Zelenskyy has been delivering war aid and inspiring speeches on social media, while condemning Russia.

Although Zelenskyy has successfully created a positive image and has countless fans, he is not a god and might make mistakes.

Mariupol has been a hotspot of the war in Ukraine, a city trapped in Russian military territory and embattled on all sides. At the same time, an isolated Ukrainian garrison, which includes part of the Azov fighters that Russia calls “Nazis” and wants to eliminate.

The challenge is that the geopolitically savvy Russian President Vladimir Putin knows very well how to manipulate Mariupol’s garrison to create geopolitical opportunities. Therefore, he ordered not to attack the Azov steel plant in Mariupol but to use them as a bargaining chip. Shortly thereafter, then came the decisive moment. After more than 80 days of unexpectedly heroic fighting, the Ukrainian garrison finally ran out of ammunition and food. At the last minute, even their wives begged the Pope to intervene, hoping to save their lives.

If Putin agrees in good faith to stop the attacks on the Ukrainian garrison, further peace talks are possible. The world will take note of this, and Turkey is willing to provide ships and security to pick up the Ukrainian garrison of the steel plant, ensuring that they would not return to the front until the war is over.

At noon on May 16, the last chance came. The Azov regiment commander Denis Prokopenko, who is often engaged in media coverage, said that the Ukrainian garrison in the Azovstal factory had completed their task and successfully distracted the Russian army for 82 days and attracted a large number of Russian forces. His statement appeared to announce the end of the siege of the steel plant. On the same day, Russian media also mentioned that Russia and Ukraine had reached an agreement to evacuate seriously wounded soldiers from Azovstal to the Russian-occupied city of Novoazovsk. Reuters reported that about a dozen buses carrying the Ukrainian garrison had left the factory.

The world believes that negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to withdraw the garrison from the Azov steel plant appear to have achieved some kind of result.

On May 17, the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces first issued a statement saying that the Mariupol garrison “has completed its combat mission”. The commander of the Ukrainian army unit defending the Azovstal steel plant received an order from the highest military command “to save the lives of personnel”, the statement stated. The Ukrainian General Staff stated that 53 seriously wounded soldiers have been taken to medical facilities in Novoazovsk. Another 211 defenders have been sent to Olenivka through humanitarian channels and will be returned to government-controlled territory through a prisoner-of-war exchange process, and measures are currently being taken to rescue the other defenders who are still at the Azovstal steel plant.

Somewhat subtly, Azov regiment commander Denis Prokopenko said in a video statement that his soldiers succeeded in distracting the overwhelming enemy force, which allows the rest of the Ukrainian forces to restructure. He however also pointed out that, “the main thing is to realize whether all the risks have been calculated, whether Plan B has been worked out, whether you have fully dedicated yourself to this plan, which should combine fulfilling the task and ultimately preserve lives and health of personnel”.

Prokopenko also emphasized that, “war is art, not science”. “This is the highest level of command and control of troops, especially when your decision is approved by the top military leadership”.

Later on May 17, Zelenskyy said that “Ukraine needs Ukrainian heroes alive”. He also mentioned “thanks to the actions of the Ukrainian military – the Armed Forces of Ukraine, intelligence, the negotiating team, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations, we hope that we will be able to save the lives of our guys,” Zelenskyy said further, recalling that among them were seriously wounded soldiers, to whom medical assistance is now being provided. He also stressed this point, “I want to emphasize: Ukraine needs Ukrainian heroes alive. This is our principle. I think that every adequate person will understand these words”.

Up until this point, I believe most people still think that the Ukraine-Russia talks are going well and executed.

Inexplicably, the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister states that Russia would not implement the agreed agreements. Then, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko revealed “negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are not going on anymore,” accusing Ukraine of not agreeing to Russia’s conditions. Since then, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the Ukrainian President’s Office, confirmed that the talks have been suspended. The risks that what Prokopenko, the commander of the Ukrainian Azov regiment, feared most have fully emerged.

Negotiations between Ukraine and the Russia are currently on hold. Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to the Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian President, mentioned on Ukrainian TV. “Russia does not understand that the war is no longer waged according to the rules, schedule or plans of Russia in any sense, while the professional resistance of Ukraine only ramps up”. He firmly stressed that none of Russia’s goals can be achieved, and Ukraine will not trade territory for peace with Russia. “It is ideologically unacceptable for us to give something to the Russian Federation and pretend that it was some kind of easy war,” Podolyak said further. “We cannot afford any Minsk agreements. Therefore, we must de-occupy all our territories”. He said that a new Minsk agreement could be signed by another president, but not President, as it would only worsen the conflict in the next one or two years.

His remarks seemed to imply that President Zelenskyy rejected Russia’s negotiating terms and insisted on fighting to the end. The challenge is that the successive surrender of the Azovstal’s regiment has become unmanageable.

The Ukrainian garrison that was originally besieged by the Russians at the Azovstal steel plant has surrendered. Instead of being exchanged back to Ukraine, they were evacuated to areas controlled by Russian forces and pro-Russian armed forces. A Russian negotiator even called for the Ukrainians to be sentenced to death because “they do not deserve to live”. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukrainian soldiers and the regiment surrounded by the Azov steel plant in Mariupol are still coming out to surrender. On May 18, 694 people surrendered, 29 of whom were wounded. Since May 16, the total number of surrendered Ukrainian garrison has reached 959, including 80 wounded.

As it stands, information on the entire negotiation over Azov steel plant is not transparent and deliberately fabricated or modified.

For example, who rejected Turkey’s participation? Was it Russia or Ukraine? Turkey has provided security, so is there no security in the negotiations now? Did the Ukrainian garrison want to surrender and Zelenskyy had to agree to surrender, or did the negotiations go wrong? Did the Ukrainian negotiators advocate for a deal with Russia, or did Russia later tear up the deal and frame the Ukrainian military presence? Did Russia tear up the deal because Zelenskyy refused to continue the negotiations?

None of these questions have clear answers. The only certainty is that Russia and Ukraine did negotiate, but no agreement is reached. However, the Azov steel plant militants had begun to surrender in large numbers.

Amidst such confusion, Zelenskyy is now having a hard time explaining that he had nothing to do with it. The Modern War Institute took note of the confusion in this diplomatic negotiation and can only assert that a diplomatic agreement has been reached.

So far, Zelenskyy has provided no further explanation for the negotiations, and this is unfair to the Mariupol garrison. Zelenskyy should instead make use of existing resources to achieve better conditions. From the negotiation process, he did not do so. Whatever his decision might be, there will certainly be negative impacts on Ukrainian society and even the morale of the garrison. Part of the reason apparently has to do with his overly optimistic view of the war in Ukraine.

All the chaos came at a price, the Russians continue to bomb the Azov steel plant simply because the Azovstal regiment is still fighting there.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

A Weapon of War: Rapes in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Published

on

Warfare has always involved violent activity. It is the state-sanctioned, societally accepted form of murder determining which nation-state or non-state actor has power over an enemy. Like any area of society, however, warfare is governed by a series of laws and regulations (commonly known as the Law of Land Warfare) being codified in international law in 1899, 1907, and 1929 and by individual nation-states afterward. While these rules are often followed by at least one entity in a military conflict, there usually is a violation of the Law of Land Warfare in any military action.

While every violation is incredibly serious and important, one that often stands out in military conflicts is sexual assault or rape.

While it is one of (if not the) most abhorrent criminal actions known to man, rape has and always will be a commonality in warfare and violent conflicts. It is practically as old as warfare itself. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “… [wartime] rape was long considered an unfortunate but inevitable accompaniment of war—the result of the prolonged sexual deprivation of troops and insufficient military discipline” with the Second World War being a prime example of wartime rape on both sides of the conflict. Until the prevalence of international law in the late 20th century, wartime rape was “mischaracterized and dismissed by military and political leaders—in other words, those in a position to stop it—as a private crime, a sexual act, the ignoble conduct of one occasional soldier, or, worse still, it has been accepted precisely because it is so commonplace”, according to academics writing in Johns Hopkins University’s SAIS Review of International Affairs.

Partly due to an increase in unconventional conflicts involving non-state actors, “the international community began to recognize rape as a weapon and strategy of war, and efforts were made to prosecute such acts under existing international law” including Article 27 of the Geneva Convention and multiple declarations by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights, the Fourth World Conference on Women, the International Criminal Court, and the UN Security Council. These declarations and codifications further allowed for the protection of men, women, and children in combat zones from rape in addition to making crimes of sexual assault eligible to be considered as crimes against humanity or war crimes.

While international law is clear and the penalties for such actions heavy, nation-states and non-state actors can choose to disregard such laws. This is best exemplified in the current era with the Ukraine-Russia Conflict.

While most persons first heard of the rape of Ukrainians by Russian troops in mid to late April of 2022, roughly two months into the invasion, reports and developments on wartime rape by Russian troops was circulating heavily. The UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), looking at information received and vetted between the 22nd of February and 26th of March, reported there were “heightened risks of conflict related sexual violence (CRSV)” in addition to “a high number of women and girls [who are feeling Ukraine] face high risk of human trafficking and sexual exploitation”. While these reports were based on secondary sources or “made by alleged witnesses”, it is worth noting that Ukrainian law enforcement and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine all began investigating multiple reports of sexual assault of Ukrainians by Russian troops and that, generally, victims of rape may not report for a variety of reasons.

Other international entities, including Human Rights Watch, the New York Times, and BBC News, all reported further allegations of rape by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, yet these were relatively overshadowed by the news of active combat.

One of the first major outlets to report on this was The Guardian on 4 April 2022 which documented reports from victims and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on rape in Ukraine. Interviewing Kateryna Cherepakha, the president of sexual assault charity La Strada Ukraine, “We have had several calls to our emergency hotline from women and girls seeking assistance, but in most cases it’s been impossible to help them physically. We haven’t been able to reach them because of the fighting … Rape is an underreported crime and stigmatised issue even in peaceful times. I am worried that what we learn about is just going to be the tip of the iceberg”.

Throughout April and into May, rapes in Ukraine were reported on more heavily as victims, Ukrainian officials, and every day Ukrainians were speaking up. This drew the attention of many international entities including the International Criminal Court which launched “a war crimes investigation”, citing the rapes as being a key piece of evidence, and the European Parliament which condemned the use of rape as a weapon. The UN’s special representative on sexual violence in war also received “reports, not yet verified” concerning the sexual assault of men and boys throughout Ukraine stating “It’s hard for women and girls to report [rape] because of stigma amongst other reasons, but it’s often even harder for men and boys to report … we have to create that safe space for all victims to report cases of sexual violence”. The UN as a whole has demanded the allegations “be independently investigated to ensure justice and accountability”.

Throughout this military endeavor, Russia has denied allowing the rape of civilians (or any such war crimes) to occur, these denials being bolstered by various American and Western podcasters and questionable news sites. While Russia and other Putin apologists can try to deny such war crimes or illegal violations of the law of land warfare is taking place, others experienced in the field of sexual assault and human rights have contested this. Hugh Williamson with Human Rights Watch (HRW), speaking to CBC Radio, said HRW was “being very cautious … It’s taken us some time to piece it together, to make sure we are absolutely sure it is true and verifiable. We’re not saying this is very widespread, but we worry that it could be”.

While it is still quite difficult to ascertain what exactly is occurring in Ukraine, given the fact that a full on war is being exercised, it is likely to believe that some manner of war crimes, including sexual assault, is occurring. The fact that Russia has historically engaged in misinformation campaigns, knowingly spread false information in regards to the Ukraine crisis, and in the past engaged in war crimes throughout Eastern Europe in the post-Cold War era all indicate strongly that Russia can and will do whatever possible to try and conceal any negative news or obscure any real actions occurring.

Looking at this from a legal perspective, the case for Russian culpability in regards to war crimes and particularly sexual assaults in Ukraine is already being made. With the UN’s special representative on sexual violence in war accurately asserting “Today’s documentation is tomorrow’s prosecution”, proving such crimes will be difficult. Speaking to Dara Kay Cohen, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, NPR reported, “It is very rare to ever have smoking gun evidence that rape was ordered from the top down … There is some degree of accountability, but it is rare. But I think that that does not imply, however, that we shouldn’t be doing our best to collect all of the documentation that we possibly can in order to potentially hold perpetrators accountable”.

Proving or disproving sexual assault in wartime is a difficult task, even more so given the fact that the armed conflict is still occurring. It is without question that there is animosity between the Western world and Russia, which makes there a certain degree of speculation about how prevalent these assaults are. However, at this point, one must look at the facts on the ground.

It is very well documented that multiple Ukrainians are reporting assaults from a wide variety of locations and their stories all follow a similar tone common in military conflicts. The forensic information already collected by independent Ukrainian doctors, prosecutors, and the UN who examine the bodies of those deceased indicates multiple assaults by Russian troops. Intercepted telephone calls from the family of Russian soldiers to the soldiers currently taking part in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also indicate a condoning of such illegal and brutal activities.

At this point, it is undeniable that these reports are impossible to ignore with the forensic, eyewitness, technical, and historical evidence all painting a sinister picture of rape in Ukraine.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

The Media Fog of War: Propaganda in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Published

on

The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine has once again opened up the old wounds of east vs. west, continuing the long-established tradition of distrust and sometimes even open hatred from these two centers of power. This can be seen across the spectrum of media outlets in the west along with their counterparts in the east, as both sides push forth propaganda and favorable coverage so as to always show their side in a favorable light. With western media outlets, their coverage of the war has been very positive for the Ukrainians while showing the exact opposite when considering Russians. Western media quickly picks up Ukrainian propaganda pieces and repeats them for their audiences at home, who then take to social media to gloat over Russian losses and embarrassments. 

Stories like the “Ghost of Kyiv,” the Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island, and others which have later proven to be inaccurate or not based in truth spread like wildfire across media outlets (Thompson, New York Times, Washington Post, etc). Certainly, a story about a Ukrainian fighter pilot shooting down several Russian jets is noteworthy and a country facing assaults from a greater power needs to boost morale every chance it gets. However, the willingness to circulate the Ghost of Kyiv tale across western media outlets displayed a clear bias for the Ukrainian side of the war in the west and, even though many have poked holes in the myth of this mysterious fighter pilot, people still disregard its “fake newsiness.” Thompson pointed out that some users on social media shared a willingness to believe in the propaganda, even knowing that it was made up: “if the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope,” remarked one user on Twitter. This set a dangerous precedent as truth became a casualty in the war in favor of people wanting to simply find stories that would support their favored narrative and consequently ignore more accurate reporting.   

Propaganda can be a useful tool for any country fighting to protect itself, but it can also lead to the spreading of falsehoods abroad and even lead some westerners to become inspired to take up arms in a conflict they probably should not get embedded within. Over 20,000 foreign fighters have signed up to fight for Ukraine in an International Brigade after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a call for help. Many of these people have little to no combat experience but were persuaded to fight for Ukraine so that they could be on “the right side of history” or combat injustice in a conflict that has been lauded as a brave underdog battle between the aggressor state Russia – longtime enemy of the west – and the small “noble” nation of Ukraine (Llana, Christian Science Monitor). Propaganda tales amplified by the media are largely responsible for bringing these foreign soldiers into a complex situation that they are not prepared for, ultimately risking an exacerbation of the war rather than a resolution of the conflict.

Stories like these have fortified in the minds of western audiences a strong dislike for Russia, its citizens, and its military. On social media channels, people were quick to put up symbols associated with Ukraine, most commonly, the Ukrainian flag, to show their support for its struggle as many, especially those in America, seemed to instinctively root for any underdog in a war. Support for Ukraine, though, naturally leads to discrimination toward Russians. Disregard for the suffering of Russian soldiers, a willingness to ignore the reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the ostracizing of Russian citizens from the rest of the world – whether physically via travel or economically via sanctions – will have negative repercussions for the international community for years to come. Many celebrate every victory that Ukraine scores against Russia, heedless of the human cost of the war in general. This may very well deepen the divide between east and west before the war ends and force many average Russian citizens into a retributive hatred for those in Europe and North America who treated their country so harshly when they themselves were powerless to stop or prevent the Ukraine-Russia war.  

Russian businesses have also been subject to discrimination in the west. Companies like Starbucks, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Electric and McDonald’s all announced that they were temporarily suspending their operations in Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine (Williams, Fox10 Phoenix). Sanctions laid down on Russia in an effort to stagnate its economy also extend to banks, legislators, and even oligarchs but will leave a much more powerful and profound effect on the general populace. This punishment will trickle down to Russian citizenry who have played no part in the conflict at all but will suffer the most from these economic sanctions, simply because they live in the aggressor country.  

This negativity against Russia and its people already existed prior to the Ukrainian-Russian war, but was reignited by the conflict. Many people in the west find it easy to fall into the camp of attacking the long-standing “enemy” due to the history left behind by the Cold War, by the psychologically-imprinted suspicion of those across the sea who threatened us with nuclear weapons for so long. In places like the U.S., there almost seems to exist a willingness to not hear the other side’s point of view, a refusal to acknowledge the sufferings of very human foes who are not so different from their adversaries. The question of why many Americans would even feel the need to take a position in a conflict that has little bearing on their everyday lives could have more than one answer. The need to cheer on an underdog in a pitched struggle, the old hatred left over by the Cold War, or possibly a need to satisfy the age-old good guy vs. bad guy complex which has been hardwired into many people’s minds through television, movies, literature, and other parts of our pop culture. For many, there exists a need to satisfy one’s own moral superiority, a need to establish good from evil. The recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia has given many the outlet they seek for this vindication.  

The question of whether this treatment of Russia is justified or not lies primarily with an individual’s perception of the country as a belligerent at the international level or a nation trying to clearly define where its sphere of influence begins and ends. Russia invading Ukraine and starting a war rife with human tragedy on both sides was not done simply because Russia as a state is a villain or it gets its kicks by starting wars randomly. A deeper examination of the “whys” surrounding Russia’s invasion is desperately needed, where the proffered reasons are given legitimate analytical consideration. So far, this type of analysis has not been done. Ultimately, why it matters is because reaching into that understanding may help prevent a country like Russia in the future from feeling the need to invade at all.  

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending