by Malcolm Dash
No state should invade another country. It’s morally and ethically unjustifiable. But when descending from mount Olympus, the real world of national interests obscures all virtuous modalities. From time immemorial, powerful nation-states have asserted their hegemony over other states; through military, economic, and territorial expansion.
From the age of the Czars, Russia has exercised its influence over the Baltic nations. However, regarding Ukraine, Russia considers this country and its people as one with Russia. And Ukraine serves as a buffer state for Russia; let’s not overlook that the West invaded Russia many times, the Swedes in the 1700s, Napoleon in the 1800s, the French and British during the 1917 Russian revolution, and the third Reich in WWII. It imprinted these invasions into the collective history of generations of Russians.
From the moment Putin arrived at the Kremlin, he telegraphed to the West that a Ukraine aligned with NATO and the EU is unacceptable. He clarified that with the termination of USSR, elimination of Soviet communism, and the Warsaw Pact, they should disband NATO. Not only did NATO dismiss a quid pro quo, it even expanded the organisation to include eastern European states like Poland and Hungary. For Putin, incorporating Ukraine into NATO is a casus belli for Russia, hence the prevailing conflict.
It was misleading for Zelensky, or he miscalculated when he concluded that America, NATO and Europe would come to his rescue. Why was it not clear to him that a western intervention on behalf of Ukraine risked a nuclear exchange between America and Russia? Thus, they limited their involvement to economic aid, late war material, and heaps of rhetoric?
Ukraine is gallantly defending itself against the Russian bear. As the resistance increases, Russia doubles the number of its divisions, and shifts tactics from surgical strikes to indiscriminate shelling, and missile strikes. And to suggest that Putin will cave in under the Draconian sanctions is wishful thinking or simple naivete. It is highly probable that his political leadership and very survival threatened if Russia loses this war.
Within a week, or a month, Ukraine will agree to peace talks and Zelensky will cede the Crimea, recognise the Donbas region’s independence and strike the NATO provision from the Ukrainian constitution.
If my prognosis is correct, then why didn’t Zelensky read the same ‘tea leaves’, draw the same conclusions, and agree with Russia’s interests? He would have avoided thousands of Ukrainian deaths, 2,600,000 refugees, millions of displaced refugees, and billions of dollars of destroyed infrastructure.
Sometimes, negotiated surrender makes more strategic sense than suicidal valour.
###
Malcolm Dash lives in Israel and is Director of Operations at Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.