Ukraine in Europe, at least after the end of World War II, has always been a paradoxical country. It has always had a triple meaning for Russia:
1. As the historic “granary” of the whole USSR with a large production of critical quantities of food,
2. As the historic “cushion” against the threat from the West,
3. As a large country in size and population (about 40 million) which had to remain “subordinate” to Russia / USSR.
Why Russia always wants Ukraine submissive
The last fact is a crucial element that shows what is happening today between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine, although the second largest Soviet republic, has always remained (until the dissolution of the USSR) “suspicious” of Russia. This is because from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, a movement of autonomy and self-determination had developed in Ukraine – and in the past.
We should not miss the fact that on the territory of the country the great battles of the “Reds” (Soviets) against the “Whites” (supporters of the Tsar and with the support of Western powers) took place in the deadly Russian civil war that lasted from 1917 to 1923.
Thus, in the period from the 1920s until the Nazi invasion of 1941, Ukraine became a large field of experimentation for the Soviet leadership, which attempted to “exorcise” its population, culminating in massive failures and mass persecution and terrorism, culminating in the great famine of 1932-33 which remained as a deep historical trauma in the country, with millions dead (the so-called Holodomor-around 3,5million deads).
The historical rift between Russia and Ukraine continued into World War II, as a portion of Ukrainians (but not the majority) fought alongside the Nazi invaders, especially in western Ukraine, hoping that through them they would achieve their coveted independence.
Also, during the German invasion, Ukraine suffered a great deal, huge battles were fought on its territory, its cities were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Jews were slaughtered by the SS and the “special forces of the rearguard” that had developed in the country. And of course the general losses of the population from the dead and wounded, both warriors and civilians, were very great (Ukraine Population (1939) 40,000,000/Military Deaths in WW2 1,400,000/Civilian Deaths in WW2 7,000,000/Civilian Deaths from Holocaust 500,000).
Post-war Ukraine thus brought to the minds of its citizens great and deeply traumatic experiences, which were to some extent mitigated by the development and rising living standards that followed, while Ukrainian politicians, such as Brezhnev, reached the highest positions in the USSR. But the distance from “Moscow” as a political center of decision increased again with the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986, which for many Ukrainians was proof that the central government of the USSR did not consider them equal citizens.
Thus, with the dissolution of the USSR in 90-91, the autonomy of Ukraine and its establishment as an independent state was welcomed by the vast majority of the population, but a very turbulent thirty years followed.
Since then – in short – Ukraine has seen significant economic growth but also huge economic crises, deeply eroded and corrupt governments, has experienced the “orange revolution” of 2004, where the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was denounced in elections and especially the 2014 revolution, where the anti-Russian opposition prevailed with strong nationalist slogans (even extremist…) but also pro-European.
In response, Russia, which until then had backed Ukraine’s pro-Russian governments and generally played a “carrot and whip” game with Kiev, has invaded Crimea (a strategic peninsula for Russia’s exit to the Black Sea and from there). Mediterranean) but also in support of the separatist movements of the Russian-speakers in the east of the country who ended up declaring their “autonomy”.
These moves by Russia shocked not only Ukraine but the whole West as no one expected Russia to proceed with such dynamic and radically invasive moves in this great country.
Although there were “samples” from the Russian offensive (eg from the invasion of Chechnya and Georgia) they were seen as small regional crises, which the West tolerated, recognizing in Russia the “need” to control its periphery and to crack down on separatist movements, especially in Chechnya and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
However, it was “unthinkable” for Russia to do the same in Ukraine, which was now even a candidate for membership in the European Union and NATO. But not for Russia, which with characteristic cynicism, “cut” Ukraine with the support of a significant part of the local population that is culturally and ethnologically “Russian”.
From the Russian side, of course, the view is completely opposite, as in Ukraine it sees its “soft belly”, that is, a country that, if it joins NATO, will mean its complete trapping and encirclement.
But the interest in the ever-continuing tension between Russia and Ukraine, with Russia exerting political and military pressure on the governments of Ukraine, with the Ukrainian governments wandering around as a “beggar” for protection from the US and Western countries, making openings in Turkey or whoever else is willing to be by her side is that the two countries remain connected.
Although trade between them has dropped significantly since 2014, it remains at about $5 billion a year, Russia is pumping significant quantities of gas through Ukraine, most Ukrainians speak Russian, there is a deep historical and cultural connection, and so on. Of course, this does not mean that mutual suspicion and hostility have diminished, but it is clear that the two neighboring countries must find a way to live together, whatever that means.
Today Ukraine-Russia conflict
Nowadays, Ukraine is facing a new (second in 2021) accumulation of Russian troops on its borders and considers that a Russian invasion is very likely and even imminent. Of course, no one knows if it will happen – although Ukrainian sources speculate that it will not happen until January or February 2022. Russia, on the other hand, declares in every way that it has no such intention but also that “it will not allow its accession. “Ukraine in NATO as this will directly undermine its defense strategy.”
As for NATO and the West in general, it has fallen into paradoxical contradictions. Thus, although in recent years Ukraine’s military support for Western armaments has been evident, with equally strong diplomatic support and the “display of a flag” of NATO ships and aircraft in the Black Sea, now the scene has changed.
Initially, we had public statements from the United States and Britain that “we will not send troops to Ukraine if Russia invades, as Ukraine is not a member of NATO.” About the same but with other formulations said many more European capitals. At the same time, the West is threatening Russia mainly with “heavy economic sanctions” if it dares to invade Ukraine, but something that can be translated by Russia as “costs that can be tolerated.”
In other words, we have many ambiguous moves and intense hesitation from the West that favor Russian aggression rather than appease it. Ukraine also can not find solid supporters in the West, such as to provide it with predictable military support, as the country has shaky foundations, its political scene is corrupt, there is intense nepotism and extremism and internal tensions, elements that make it minimal trustworthy.
But does Russia really want to invade Ukraine?
The answer is probably no as this does not have any practical geopolitical benefit. At least if we are talking about an invasion with the prospect of occupying it. Why should Russia get involved in the occupation of a huge country, with strong anti-Russian sentiments and spend all its political capital there and find itself under a regime of global sanctions, with huge annual financial bloodshed in its federal budget that will slowly and steadily lead to the fall of its current regime? Employing even a huge part of its military forces?
The only version that could be argued that an invasion would be of “benefit” to Russia would be a campaign of a few days, to crush any Ukrainian forces and then withdraw, so that Ukraine, terrified and weakened, would “consent”. in its re-conversion into a Russian satellite. This, plus its current division (with Crimea and the eastern part of the country already in Russia’s hands) would be the ideal scenario for Russia to take full control of Ukraine, having it under constant threat.
Although no one knows Russia’s true intentions, it is interesting to note that the more Russia accumulates troops on the border with Ukraine and conducts large-scale exercises there (essentially by demonstrating forces), the more the West seems willing to “discuss” the whole issue, retreating. from previous aggressive statements. This is how a NATO-Russia dialogue is planned at the beginning of the year, Putin and Biden have already had a direct telephone conversation, while Russia has publicly put on the “table” its demands for a freeze on NATO expansion to the East.
Of course, there are more statements and accusations on both sides, but it is clear that the West sees the limit in how it can (and if it can) engage in an open war with Russia on Ukrainian territory, which will almost mathematically lead to on the verge of a general conflict.
Ukraine can become the “huge wound” of Europe
Thus, Ukraine, today a harbinger of its internal disputes, without a clear political and cultural identity, with many references to a “glorious” past that unfortunately leans against the separatist movements of World War II with tolerance and even cooperation with the then Nazi invaders, with the economy trying to recover from the 2014 crisis could become another “black hole” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. That is, what has already happened in Armenia, Georgia and Chechnya, countries that survive thanks to the “tolerance” of the surrounding (or even more distant) rulers.
Of course, if this happens, the size of Ukraine will make the “hole” a huge wound for the whole of Europe and its regional security system, destroying any prospects for democratization and development. Probably leading the continent to a rapid return to a new version of the Cold War, but to a much more cynical version and with its two “pillars” completely unstable.
On the one hand, Russia, which will fight (in its own reasoning) to avoid its encirclement and subjugation, and on the other, the also xenophobic USA, which is preparing for a two-sided struggle against its economic and military rivals, China and Russia, in an unprecedented tug of arms, economic war and threats.
