The war in Ukraine has started. Many observers thought the war was unlikely, but on February 24 at 5 am (EET), Vladimir Putin launched a “special military operation” from Crimea, thereby initiating a full-scale invasion. This war is Europe’s largest conflict since WWII. Putin declared Ukraine an official Russian territory and justified his aggression by claiming historical unity between Ukraine and Russia. However, Ukraine has been an independent country since 1991, when 92% of the population voted in a referendum supporting the Act of Independence. So why now?
Ukraine holds a key geographical position in Europe. The largest country in Europe, Ukraine is Russia’s territorial buffer against western foes. As NATO and the EU expanded towards the East, Russia felt more and more dependent on the Ukrainian buffer. Meanwhile, NATO and the EU have pushed for the westernization of Kyiv. Resultantly, Ukraine has become the primary pressure point for security competition between Russia and the West. The Orange Revolution and the invasion of Crimea were only the first consequences of this tugging game. The current war is an escalatory step for Russian involvement in Ukraine, and it will redefine Europe no matter its outcome.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was foreseeable. In 2021, Putin published a 5000 words essay on “The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” In the essay, Putin mourned the end of the Soviet Union and the loss of Ukraine. His views are clear and, praising the totalitarian structure of the Soviet regime, he argues that Ukraine cannot be considered a real country. Rejecting Ukrainian culture and values, he claims that the two countries share a common identity and were divided only by the unjust work of anti-Russian forces. The essay can be considered a prelude to the events that we see today.
Putin has been at the head of the Russian Federation for two decades but has rarely taken any big chances against the West. His 71% approval rating, high by western standards, has plummeted since his first years as the leader (Statista, 2021). The slow economic diversification does not benefit his standing. Like most leaders, Putin wants to leave a positive legacy. His deep desire to reunify the Soviet Union, and in particular Ukraine, under Russian control might be his legacy-defining moment. But Putin is also an extremely smart strategist. According to Marples, “he creates a crisis and sees what happens […], this is the way Russian leadership operates”. It is safe to assume that Putin would have not initiated an attack if he feared a strong united retaliatory response. After 8 years since the war in Crimea, Putin chose the winter of 2022 to launch his operation even though he could have done so anytime. So why now? A void in global leadership is partially responsible.
The European Union, rarely united on main issues, failed to dissuade Putin. Attempts at coordination during the COVID-19 pandemic or on environmental matters have shown the deep divergence between European countries. As every country prioritizes its own agenda, the focus is often lost on finding unitary solutions–presenting the EU as a weak and broken front.
The EU is seemingly without a leader. When Angela Merkel stepped down as Chancellor of Germany, the EU lost its unofficial leader. France, amid the presidential election campaign, attempted to fill the void. President Macron, who is running for his second mandate, focused his communication on presenting a strong France, capable of leading Europe into a new peaceful decade. However, the French President has not shown the same charismatic abilities as the former German Chancellor and has repeatedly been mocked for his attempts at diplomacy with the Russian president.
UK’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has also failed to rally the EU. Recently, Johnson has faced criticism for breaking his own stringent COVID-19 policies during a party at 10 Downing Street. While Johnson has openly denounced Putin, the denunciations were never followed by tangible policy responses. The UK is not even accepting visa applications from Ukrainians trying to flee the conflict, thereby preventing them from finding legal ways to seek asylum.
The Italian government has failed to take a clear stance in the Russo-Ukrainian war. Since 2005, cabinets have only lasted an average of 13 months. As a result, policies have been extraordinarily ambiguous and foreign ministers have not been transparent about Russia. Italy did not publicly condemn Russia until recently because of the close relations between the two countries. Gas imports from Russia make up about 45% of the country’s economic needs and Italy cannot afford the impact it would have on the population if they were to damage this relationship.
In sum, the lack of strong leadership and common goals, combined with the countries’ domestic interests, has left the EU unable to efficiently counteract Russian pressure. Before the invasion, the cohesive united front that the EU has been able to show would have been a remote dream of a few bureaucrats in Brussels. Definitely, something Moscow might not have seen coming.
After WWII, Winston Churchill famously said “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Mr. Putin seems to have made Churchill’s advice a personal practice. The lack of strong leadership, unity, and apprehension for the deterioration of economic and energetic relations with Russia led to an unsuccessful effort from world leaders in stopping the war. Too little has been done, and too late. Now, world leaders come together in reprimanding Russian behavior and its disregard for international law and human rights. The draconian sanctions will have a devastating effect on Russia. But the war has started anyway and the tugging game for Ukraine has become much more lethal.
Be First to Comment