Conflict in Eastern Ukraine: Geopolitical Considerations for US and Russia

Published in UDN
(Taiwan) on 18 January 2022
by Feng-Yung Hu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Pinyu Hwang. Edited by Michelle Bisson.
In mid-January, deputies from Russia, the U.S., NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe began discussion on policy positions with respect to the situation in Ukraine. Although the West cannot to Russia's demand that NATO not restrained from expanding eastward, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council issued a joint statement earlier on Jan. 3 addressing the prevention of nuclear war and avoiding an arms race, providing a buffer for continued negotiations.

There are two legal bases for how Russian President Vladimir Putin views the status Crimea and Donbass. First, Putin argues that Vladimir Lenin and Nikita Khrushchev’s Soviet-era decision to transfer the administrative ownership of these two regions from Russia to Ukraine was no longer the collapse of the Soviet Union. Secondly, the Moscow Arbitration Court granted the appeal of Ukrainian government officials who opposed the violent 2014 coup and ruled that it was unconstitutional. Accordingly, at the root of all Putin's subsequent actions is the idea that these two regions are illegally occupied by Ukraine and people themselves should decide their future.

In February 2014, a bloody coup d'état took place in Kyiv, and the results of that color revolution support Putin's claim that Ukraine was illegally seized. At the time, Russia's fleet of 20,000 troops, which had been legally stationed in the Crimean Black Sea, drove approximately 200 NATO workers out of Crimea directly after the coup. In March 2014, the Crimean status referendum resulted in the decision to leave Ukraine and apply to Russia for membership in the Russian Federation.

In April 2014, Luhansk and Donetsk declared independence after they rejected the uprising in Kyiv, immediately bsparking an serious and deadly military conflict between Kyiv and the Donbass. In September 2014, the Normandy Format — a group consisting of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine — signed the Minsk Protocol. Russia's role was to ensure that the Donbass region could not use force to resolve its autonomous status. However, in August 2021, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's "Crimean Platform" gained momentum as a powerful anti-Russian coalition of Western countries working collectively to denounce Crimea. Russia views the "Crimea Platform" as a way that the West rationalizes its military involvement on Russian territory any time it wants.

As the West now continues to draw attention to Russia's readiness to invade Donbass and expand globally, Putin faces two warning signs. First, the U.S. has declared that it will impose devastating economic sanctions, which sounds to Putin like it means Kyiv will deal forcefully with Donbass, and that the West is demanding Russia not intervene militarily. Second, if Donbass openly asks Russia for military help, it could mean direct confrontation. Then, with Kyiv in a situation where it cannot win, the stalemate between NATO and Russia will amount to what exists now. Russian military action will depend on containing the conflict in Donbass, and both Washington and Moscow intend to deescalate the tension.

The United States also has its own geopolitical objectives, First, it aims to take advantage of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine by imposing economic sanctions that will let the U.S. curb the revival of Russia's geopolitical influence. Second, the U.S. wants to deter the EU from further economic integration with Russia through natural gas. Third, the U.S. hopes to disrupt the progress of Chinese-Russian cooperation in Central Asia following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. On the whole, the Biden administration would like to see a stronger American presence in Europe and the restoration of U.S. global leadership. Putin, on the other hand, would like to attract the great powers in an effort to achieve strategic stability, so that Moscow will not have to constantly respond to Kyiv's interference and its adding to internal strife among the Slavic people.


一月中旬,俄羅斯和美國、北約以及歐安組織展開了副部級談判,各自表明立場。西方儘管不能同意俄羅斯提出的北約不能東擴的立約要求,但在此前的一月三日,聯合國安理會五常任理事國卻已經先發表了關於防止核戰與避免軍備競賽的聯合聲明,為彼此鋪墊了持續談判的緩衝基礎。

俄羅斯總統普亭看待克里米亞和頓巴斯地位有兩個法律基礎的思維脈絡: 一是,列寧與赫魯雪夫決定將這兩個地區的行政歸屬從俄羅斯劃入烏克蘭,那麼,這個蘇聯時期的行政決定在蘇聯解體之後就喪失了其依據的合法基礎;二是,莫斯科仲裁法院接受了二○一四年由一批反對政變的烏克蘭政府官員的訴訟申請,其裁定結果是暴力政變是違憲行為。這就意味著普亭後來的所有行動的思想根源:在烏克蘭非法占據以及非法政變下的這兩個地區前途,應由當地人民自行決定。

二○一四年二月基輔發生流血政變,顏色革命結果堅定了普亭認為烏克蘭非法侵占的想法。那麼,俄羅斯本來在克里米亞黑海艦隊的兩萬人合法駐軍,直接在政變後把北約兩百名人員趕出了克里米亞。二○一四年三月,克里米亞公投結果是決定脫離烏克蘭,並且向俄羅斯申請加入俄羅斯聯邦。

二○一四年四月,盧甘斯克與頓涅茨克以不贊成基輔政變奪權而宣布獨立。基輔與頓巴斯地區之間立刻展開了嚴重致命的軍事衝突。二○一四年九月,由俄德法烏四國協商的諾曼第機制完成了《明斯克停戰協議》。俄羅斯的角色就是保障頓巴斯地區不能用武力以解決其自治地位。然而,二○二一年八月,烏克蘭總統澤倫斯基倡議的「克里米亞平台」聲勢浩大,成為西方國家助陣集體向俄羅斯聲討克里米亞的反俄聯盟。俄羅斯則將「克里米亞平台」視作西方隨時軍事介入俄國領土的合理化基礎。

現在西方持續宣傳俄羅斯準備入侵頓巴斯與全球擴張,對普亭產生了兩個警訊:第一,美國宣稱將施以毀滅性的經濟制裁,普亭聽起來是意味著基輔將以武力解決頓巴斯,而西方要求俄羅斯不能軍事阻止;第二,倘若頓巴斯公開向俄羅斯軍事求援,那就意味直接對決。那麼,基輔在沒有贏面的情況下,北約與俄羅斯的僵持對峙就是當下的場景。俄羅斯的軍事行動將取決於頓巴斯的衝突不再進一步擴大,華府與莫斯科都有意願控制局勢降溫。

美國也有其地緣政治目標:一,利用俄烏矛盾而持續施以經濟制裁,遏制俄羅斯地緣影響力的復甦;二,壓制歐盟不得與俄羅斯進一步透過天然氣進行經濟整合;三,美軍在撤出阿富汗之後,擾亂中俄在中亞維穩的合作進程。總體而言,拜登政府樂見美國在歐洲角色的鞏固,重拾領導地位;普亭則希望拉高到大國協商,以達到分歧控管的戰略穩定格局,這樣莫斯科就不必經常回應基輔的干擾而造成斯拉夫人之間的鬩牆悲劇。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: From the Cities of America to John Bolton: Trump’s Vendetta Campaign against Opponents Reaches New Heights

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Pakistan: Trump’s Gaza Blueprint Unfolds

Australia: Donald Trump Is Taking Over the US Federal Reserve and Financial Markets Have Missed the Point

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Topics

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Luxembourg: Thanks, Daddy: Trump Is Imposing Putin’s Will on Europe