Putin’s Calculus: The Russo-Ukrainian War and Russia’s Regional Ambitions

NATO and its member nations place a high value on Ukraine’s security. The right of Ukraine to self-defence and the freedom to select its security arrangements are inalienable, and the Alliance strongly supports both. From the foregoing, it would be logical to adduce that NATO is the future of Ukraine.

But what most people don’t even understand is that Ukraine’s quest to join NATO didn’t start in the wake of Russia’s invasion in 2022. Beginning in the early 1990s, NATO’s relations with Ukraine have grown to become one of the alliance’s most significant relationships. In response to Russia’s illegitimate invasion of Crimea in 2014, cooperation has increased in crucial areas. Unprecedented levels of support have been given by NATO and its allies since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. 

Now that I’ve cleared the air, it is crucial in light of the above that I explain what initially piqued Ukraine’s interest in joining NATO.

When Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), a platform for communication and collaboration between NATO Allies and their erstwhile Warsaw Pact rivals, formal NATO-Ukraine relations were established in 1991. Ukraine became a member of the Partnership for Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between individual partner countries and NATO, in 1994, after a few years. When the NACC was superseded in May 1997 by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), it was one of the original members. 

NATO-Ukraine ties are still based on the July 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership. The primary organisation in charge of developing ties between NATO and Ukraine was formed under the Charter as the NATO-Ukraine Commission. The Commission oversaw joint initiatives and offered a platform for consultation on security matters of mutual interest between Ukraine and the Allies.

The 2009 Declaration to Complement the Charter, which was signed in response to the decisions made at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008, assigned the Commission a primary role in strengthening political cooperation and dialogue to support Ukraine’s reform initiatives concerning its Euro-Atlantic aspirations for NATO membership. 

The Annual National Programme (ANP), which embodies Ukraine’s national reform objectives and annual implementation plans, is the main instrument to support this process. The ANP is divided into five chapters that address the following topics: legal concerns, resources, defence and military issues, political and economic issues, and security issues. In line with Euro-Atlantic standards and ideals, this includes changes pertaining to human rights, the rule of law, good governance, the fight against corruption, and the security and defence industries.

Every year, Allies evaluate the ANP’s development. Its implementation is primarily Ukraine’s responsibility. The general coordination of its execution by the state bodies is ensured by the Commission for Coordination of Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine, which is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration.  

The NATO-Ukraine Commission was replaced in 2023 with the creation of the NATO-Ukraine Council. The transition from Commission to Council signifies the deepening of Ukraine’s political bonds and the country’s growing integration with NATO. Ukraine is seated equally with all other NATO members under the Council format. For crisis consultations, the Secretary-General may call a meeting of the Council, as may any of its members, including Ukraine. The NATO-Ukraine Council met for the first time during the Vilnius Summit on July 12, 2023. 

According to some Western commentators, the Kremlin’s growing anger towards NATO’s post-Cold War expansion into the former Soviet sphere of influence is what led to Russia’s invasion in 2022. Putin and other Russian officials have claimed that NATO and the US regularly broke promises made in the early 1990s not to extend the alliance into the former Soviet Union. They see NATO’s expansion as a humiliating imposition that they could only see during this turbulent time for Russia.

Prequel to the Russo-Ukrainian War: Russia’s Annexation of Crimea

Since Russia annexed Crimea, which was located in Ukraine, in 2014, the conflict in that country has intensified. Armed troops wearing plain uniforms without insignia started to take over Crimea in late February 2014. Russia denied involvement despite their Russian equipment and armaments. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, proclaimed Crimea to be a part of Russia just two months after their arrival. With that, the Russo-Ukrainian War officially began. 

A general desire to reclaim Russia’s former domains of influence drove President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and occupy the Crimean Peninsula in February 2014. 

Several interconnected reasons contributed to this decision. Victor Yanukovych, the President of Ukraine, was abruptly removed from office as a result of the Euromaidan protests that broke out in the months before the invasion. 

It seems that after Yanukovych’s downfall, Russia saw more advantages from an invasion than disadvantages from infringing on Ukraine’s sovereignty. 

It is vital to comprehend the complex history of the relations between Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea as well as the conflict from the perspective of several international relations theories to comprehend the pertinent elements that affected Putin’s choice. Important perspectives in this regard are offered by nationalism, imperialism, irredentism, deterrence, diversionary war theory, and the just war theory. 

Why Russia Attacked Ukraine

In the years preceding the 2022 invasion, Ukraine strengthened its connections with NATO despite continuing to be a non-member. Ukraine participated in yearly military drills with the coalition and was named one of only six enhanced opportunity partners in 2020—a unique designation reserved for the closest non-member friends of the bloc. 

Furthermore, Kyiv reiterated its intention to eventually join NATO in its entirety.

Russia made several significant security demands on the US and NATO in the weeks preceding its invasion, including that they stop NATO expansion, getting Russian approval for specific US military deployments, and removing US nuclear weapons from Europe. In response, the alliance leaders said they were amenable to fresh dialogue but would not talk about closing NATO’s doors to new members. 

Afterwards, Putin was heard saying, “If Ukraine joins NATO, you won’t even have time to blink your eye when you execute Article 5′” and “There will be no winners And against your will, you’ll be drawn into this fight.” In a tape that Daily Mail released and published in February 2022. 

But what is the provision of Article 5, you may ask? According to Article 5, if an armed attack occurs against an ally of NATO, all other members of the Alliance are required to view this as an armed attack against all members and will take any necessary steps to support the harmed ally.

So what is the likely consequence of the irreconcilable war between Russia and Ukraine?

Potential WWIII and Implications of the Ongoing War and Potential War Consequences

As the Russo-Ukrainian War enters its second year, neither a winner nor a conqueror exists. Both countries have lost a sizable number of soldiers, bringing the fight to a standstill.

The prolonged Ukrainian war only serves to highlight Russia’s military weakness, which should have alarmed Vladimir Putin himself as he would not have predicted that the war would last as long as it has given Russia’s military might and Arsenal an advantage over Ukraine. Russia was unquestionably the stronger force going into the conflict.

What does this suggest? This suggests that Russia would not want the Russo-Ukrainian War to turn into World War III at this stage since it would be an increasingly hopeless fight. In the same spirit, it is obvious why Putin wishes to use force in Ukraine.

1. If Putin concedes to Ukraine joining NATO, other countries within Eastern Europe would want to follow suit
2. If that happens, Putin’s quest for regional dominance in Eastern Europe would be truncated
3. When that happens, Russia’s quest for global rivalry with US’ hegemonic status would be tarnished.

Putin having perceived this, has decided to strengthen his diplomatic ties with African countries particularly Sub-Saharan African Countries. 

Thus, in a situation wherein the Russo-Ukrainian war results in WW III, Africa serves as the basis for recruitment into the Russian military force.

In a different spirit, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a disastrous influence on present and future well-being, as well as enormous humanitarian consequences. Significant short-term economic consequences are being incurred by it, mostly in Russia and Ukraine, but also in Europe and beyond, especially for nations that depend on these two nations for their imports of food and oil. The length and scope of these expenses will depend on how the war plays out, but already, it has led to a noticeable decline in the expectations for global growth as well as an increase in inflation. 

Anticipatingly,  that the invasion will intensify several global economic shifts that are already underway, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, China/US dynamics, and other forces pushing globalisation, in addition to persistent but progressively time-dependent issues like climate change and the requirement for a “green transition.” This note primarily focuses on these long-term ramifications.

A variety of outcomes are possible, just like in the conflict itself. These futures are not predetermined; rather, they mostly depend on the decisions made by those in positions of power, especially in the major economies and crucial regional alliances of the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

The main argument, therefore, is that the conflict will accelerate the trend of retreating from globalisation that has been underway for some time. 

Furthermore, many of the fundamental political and economic forces that have shaped the world economy over the last few decades will probably reverse themselves, leaving the economy shaped by new macro conditions and priorities.

 As a result, the coming years will probably be characterised by a lot of changes. Among them is a potential acceleration of the transition from globalisation to regionalization, which could raise production costs as well as interest rates and worldwide inflation.

Questioning the Scope and Context of International Law about Global Power Relations.

Until now, an intriguing query has been posed: How will or can international law be upheld?

International law ought to be enforceable if independent states are founded on the defence of innocent lives in times of conflict. However, this raises another issue: who is responsible for enforcing these legal requirements? Enforcing international law is significantly hampered by issues like sovereignty.

In light of the aforementioned, we must demonstrate that the foundations for enforcement and execution are very different. Therefore, the issue that international law is currently facing has less to do with implementation and more to do with enforcement.

To solidify the foregoing argument, you will concur with me that all nations that are members of the United Nations implement the UDHR, which deals with international humanitarian law. But is every nation obligated by this pact to uphold it? The simple response is no.

The question of how the UN has enforced the UDHR arises from the aforementioned; the technicality and complexity are further entrenched in the belief held by most states that national law takes precedence over international law because it is crafted per their cultural values, which should be duly considered in political administration; however, international law may occasionally conflict with national values, raising the issue of sovereignty once more.  

To support the aforementioned, Saudi Arabia expressed doubts about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), claiming that its call for religious freedom went against Islamic principles and that human rights protected by Saudi Arabia’s Islamic-based legal system were more important than those protected by the Universal Declaration.

As a policy proposal,  I would recommend that International organisations should and must prioritise enforcement over the implementation of international law to reduce the likelihood of a third world war amid the growing tension of realism in global politics.

I think there is a way to solve the complexity of international law; thus, the sequel to this article will try to uncover any potential solutions to the problems that have encased international law in its complexity.