By Dr. Sheetal Sharma
With vacillating opinion in favour of war to suppression of opposition of war, the world will start seeing the Ukranian aggression more as a humanitarian crisis sooner than later and will coalesce against Russia as a threat to world peace and global order in the long run.
The current situation on eastern border of Europe is grim and involves many actors and factors in its making. Depending on what position and/or perspective an individual holds, one can call it war, aggression, invasion or attack, but in sum total the ground situation remains grave. On April 2, 2019, Evelyn Farkas, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, delivered a testimony in front of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the future challenges and opportunities for NATO ahead of the alliance’s 70th anniversary. Farkas was deliberating upon the challenges, threats and opportunities facing NATO within the context of its Open Door policy, and he opened up by saying that ‘our international system, NATO, and democracy in America and around the world have never been in graver danger since the Cold War than they are today’.
The transatlantic organisation faced challenges from both the sides of the Atlantic. In the EU there was a division of opinion between the federalist who advocated for a fully integrated defence under an EU framework and the (pro) Atlantist who relied and considered NATO as central pillar for European defence initiatives; and yet another group calling for more intergovernmental approach setting aside collective structures in favour of ad hoc coalitions in the region between stakeholder countries. NATO was perceived as adhering to the conventional style of response even when others and Russia particularly, was posing grave challenges using unconventional threats to NATO and its allies in the form of cyber-attacks, chemical-grade weapons, election meddling, misinformation, disinformation, and exhibition of military might in Baltics region and what not. In sum, NATO was increasingly seen as sluggish and sticking to a routine approach of operations involving planning, command structure, troop deployment and, often, long negotiations. However Russian aggression has created conditions for NATO to reinfuse life in the collective. Some of the obvious indicators are that Sweden and Finland are considering accession to NATO.
While delivering a speech to the EU parliament in Strasbourg, the French President Emmanuel Macron said that “it will take decades for Ukraine to be accepted into the European Union (EU)”. Macron suggested that “Ukraine could join a parallel European community as it awaits the EU’s decision on its membership. If Ukraine decided to join the parallel European community then the community could also host non-EU members who could be part of Europe’s security architecture”. Macron further added that the “new organisation would allow democratic European nations to “find a new space of political cooperation” in the areas of security, energy, transport, infrastructure investment and freedom of movement. Such statements are proof of consolidation of the EU on various parallel lines and aspects. The support that Ukraine is receiving from the western club has helped Ukraine stay in the defence of aggression for more than two months now. The attack has also put the scepticism regarding the European integration on back burner. Suddenly Europe seems to be more united, at least temporarily in the wake of the Russian threat. The European countries find themselves more close and safe in the European security umbrella and ambit as compared to a situation where they struggle alone and becoming vulnerable to Russian threat.
In fact the Russian intervention in Ukraine has resulted in conditions that were faintly existing or were under stress at the beginning of 2022. The threat of Russia has resulted in seemingly greater integration of the EU. The shocks of post Brexit restructuring, looming threats of other exits, political crisis and economic stress, the chasm between the eastern and western Europe, etc. for a while have given way to greater faith in collective existence rather than fissiparous tendencies. Germany, despite being slightly reluctant initially in imposition of sanctions against Russia finally reflected the EU’s sentiment in opposing the war and clear disassociation. Further, after more than 7 decades Germans are mulling for remilitarisation in case of any security threat. In the light of the energy crisis that the European countries are and may have to face, there can be some differences of opinion on Russia (such as Hungary demanded full exemption from Russia oil import ban, as it will place an unfair burden on countries that import crude oil from Russia. Slovakia, Czech Republic and Bulgaria too are resisting the oil import ban) but all of these countries largely converge on anti-aggression stand.
In more than two months it is evident that the skirmish has reached an impasse with both sides claiming victory and reclaiming areas under siege from each other. Which countries support Russia and why they support military action and intervention in Ukraine are well known to the world, but beyond a point Russian aggression cannot be an answer to the perceived threat of NATO’s presence at its doorstep. Russia acted out of proportion on a (perceived) threat of NATO coming to its doorstep, but it has itself created conditions for NATO to come and camp in its neighbourhood. The complete capture of Ukraine will make Poland as its neighbour. As and when Sweden and Finland joins NATO, which shares 810 mile long border with Russia, NATO will be its next door neighbour.
The more the war drags, with every passing day Russia may or may not accept that it is losing militarily, but in the medium to long run it will suffer economically, and also on many other indexes of humanitarian concerns. Driven by western sanction and facing grave economic situations, four regional governors, from Tomsk, Saratov, Kirov and Mari El regions, resigned from their offices. With vacillating opinion in favour of war to suppression of opposition of war, the world will start seeing the Ukranian aggression more as a humanitarian crisis sooner than later and will coalesce against Russia as a threat to world peace and global order in the long run. The global community in general has to envisage ways to bring the intervention to an end. Compromises and negotiations have to be done from both the sides. Both from a near and/or a distant perspective it is not a win-lose situation, it is a lose-lose for all the actors involved.
Dr. Sheetal Sharma is Assistant Professor, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, JNU.