Essay on Global Conflict
Recent Ukrainian crisis of 2014, which began with Euromaidan Revolution and the overthrow of the corrupted regime of Viktor Yanukovych, and the subsequent annexation of the Crimea Peninsula and the armed conflict in Donbas (region in eastern Ukraine) became the epicenter of global conflict and dramatically affected the international correlation of forces. This conflict could be most effectively considered through the prism of realism paradigm and the Billiard Ball Theory in particular, which implies that international relations can be understood in terms of the movements of certain states in respect to the other ones and pressure they apply as the result of power manipulations (Baysha, 2014).
Thus, contemporary Ukraine, by virtue of its geographical location and characteristics of the political and economic situation (poverty, pervasive corruption and shadow economy), has found itself in the zone of geopolitical interests of the major players, and in fact – a small coin in the geopolitical games of the US, the EU, Russia and China. Here, the US interests, acting through the EU, and primarily through Poland, lie in using Ukraine to weaken Russia and prevent the development and strengthening of the Eurasian economic and military bloc. Russia’s interests consist in using Ukraine to weaken the United States and to avoid the disposition of NATO troops and bases on the Russian border, as well as limit the economic expansion of the EU. China’s interests lie in using Ukraine as a transport corridor for Chinese products to the EU and in turning Ukraine into its raw material appendage with cheap labor force. All geopolitical players are using Ukraine exceptionally for their own purposes, and all their actions are aggressive with the only difference that the aggression of the US, the EU and Russia has an uncovered economic and military component, whereas the aggression of China is determined by a new latent technology – the seizure of territories through economic expansion (Milevski, 27-29).
Real manifestation of these interests was revealed in relation to Ukraine’s decision to sign the association agreement with the EU with the prospect of joining the EU and NATO membership. Initially, the Revolution of Dignity was caused by the general crisis of the representative democracy in Ukraine, and then actively inspired and supported by the US and the EU, clearly aimed at Ukraine’s geopolitical absorption. The success of their common policies led to the change of the political regime in Ukraine: after the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country, the politicians fighting for Ukraine’s European choice came to power. This, however, could not be easily seen by Russia. Under the guise of protecting the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine in Crimea, Russia as a permanent member of the UN with the veto right, having flagrantly violated international law, the resolutions of the UN, OSCE and PACE, the postwar agreement on the status quo, and nuclear disarmament of Ukraine in 1993, as well as the Constitution of Ukraine, first captured and later annexed the Crimea (Tannenbaum, 8).
Indeed, the unilateral secession of the Crimea from Ukraine and joining Russia cannot be considered legitimate. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Crimea was part of the USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) voluntarily according to a popular referendum, therefore the secession of the Crimea from Ukraine especially under the pressure of ill-concealed aggression from a neighboring state is a violation of the principle of territorial integrity. Despite the official recognition of occupation by the UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 of March 27, 2014 about the support of territorial integrity of Ukraine and general condemnation of Russia’s actions on the part of world powers, their policy of containment and even appeasement failed (Milevski, 29-33).
Moreover, steadily following the idea of the restoration of Russian civilization space and the establishment of controlled regimes in the occupied territories, Russia initiates the emergence of breakaway republics DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) and LPR (Lugansk People’s Republic) in April 2014, and supports the illegal armed groups operating in the Donbas, supplying them with ammunition, modern weapons, heavy military equipment etc.(Wawrzonek, 760-761). There are also compelling data of the monitoring mission of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that a significant part of the regular troops of Russia, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other military equipment also acts on the territory of Ukraine. Thus, Amnesty International considers the ongoing events as an international armed conflict with Russia being also involved in it. Fighting in eastern Ukraine, continuing since April 2014, led to significant destruction of civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of refugees. According to the UN by October 29 at least 4035 people were killed (including 298 passengers on board MH17) and 9336 wounded in eastern Ukraine. According to the UN data of the beginning of October, over 5 million people live within the conflict zone, 379,000 people moved to other regions of Ukraine, and more than 426,000 moved to neighboring countries (United Nations).
Response to Russia’s military invasion of the eastern borders of Ukraine has become an economic war with Russia. Official sanctions alongside unofficial policy to reduce oil prices as the basis of Russia’s well-being today led to a record drop in the ruble (Russian currency), mass withdrawal of foreign investment, postponement for the construction of South Stream gas pipeline from Russia to the EU, and the forced necessity to sign gas agreement at the lowest competitive prices. The financial pressure is now forcing Russian companies to ask for public funding as a palliative, which creates an additional burden on the state budget. In this way, Russian strategic decision regarding the maintenance of the Ukrainian crisis in order to ensure long-term profitability of Russian Gas Company Gazprom has not yet been realized, while the US and its allies have managed to temporarily weaken Russia, as well as create opportunities for future energy independence. It should be noted that the European Union with the second largest trade balance after China has always been a profitable strategic partner of NATO, and in addition to the political significance this alliance promises great benefits to American producers of shale gas. In addition, Ukraine’s neighboring countries Turkey, Poland and Romania are intensively making all efforts trying to strengthen their regional position (Wawrzonek, 773-780).
At the same time, there are several pro-Russian governments in the European Union. It is primarily Hungary, where authoritarian statist regime of Orban is trying to balance its dependence on the Brussels by project with Moscow, including projects of nuclear power plants construction for the Russian loan. In turn, Slovakia and Greece are also traditional partners of Russia, as well as the Czech Republic, where President Zeman openly takes a very pro-Russian stance. However, all of these players are the beneficiaries, not the donors to the EU. At the same time, the growing rhetoric of contradictions and mutual threats directly refers the society to the days of the Cold War (Roskin, 5-9).
Indeed, the forgotten bipolar world system is clearly being revived. We can say that the era that began with the famous Yalta meeting between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, when the foundations of the post-war architecture were determined, ended in the very same Yalta with the annexation of the Crimea. Post-Yalta architecture assumed the structure of the world when the great powers, which at the time were on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, understood that the world is not entirely fair but there is a need to fix the status quo. Fixing the status quo in the large countries, it was permissible to fight for areas of interest somewhere in Afghanistan, Africa and Korea, that is, in the Third World. Now that world order has been broken. This essentially means that the UN Security Council does not work, because in the architecture where each permanent member has a veto, Russia would not veto itself, or rather would not vote for sanctions against itself and condemnation of aggression. The OSCE does not work either, and we see that the two countries that are members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe are actually in a state of an undeclared war. The effectiveness of the Council of Europe is also questioned as it is based on democratic values, including on the inviolability of borders with Russia and Ukraine being the members of it.
Thus, the greatest global challenge of the Ukrainian crisis is the fact that what was built after World War II and reformed in the early 1990’s now completely ceased to function. We are facing a global problem to fill the void: will the world fall apart into small artificially national countries with each creating temporary alliances to their interests or will we reanimate the international security architecture, or will we create something new instead of the current system? As for the local aspects of this problem, the possible solution to the conflict in Ukraine is the signing of a tripartite agreement (the EU – Ukraine – the Customs Union) on the joint sustainable development, using attention of all the countries to the situation in Ukraine. Objectives of the Ukrainian authorities are to find instruments to influence geopolitical players and implement a global reform of the country. Today, Ukraine receives the next (and possibly the last) chance in its history, passing a kind of turning point, which can be overcome in favor of statehood only by strong focus of all efforts on achieving the strategic goal – to transform the country into a powerful unitary state, a regional leader capable of guaranteeing security and high social standard of living of its citizens. From the standpoint of liberalism, the inner way out of this political crisis is possible by switching to the cluster system of territory administration and people power with elements of direct democracy.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...