How Russia was provoked by the West

The first myth stipulates that Russia deliberately attacked Ukraine without any reason, annexing Crimea and destabilising eastern Ukraine. Debunking this myth is crucial, as many other false statements about Russia originate from the assumption that Russia acted belligerently. However, the truth is that the West triggered Russia into reacting the way it did. Firstly, since 2004 the West continuously supported and injected finance into pro-Western groups in Ukraine, despite warnings from Russia to not destabilise Ukraine. Secondly, the European Union was blackmailing former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich into signing an Association Agreement, a deal that would be of grave consequences to Russian economy due to Western products flooding the Russian market.

When former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich decided against signing the agreement, realising that it would not be in Ukraine’s interest to do so, the West decided to support a violent coup of a legitimately elected President. Thirdly, Ukrainian opposition and its Western backers did not adhere to the agreement signed by Yanukovich and the opposition on 21 February 2014.

At this point, Russia realised that the West was not looking to find a compromise and a diplomatic solution that would benefit all sides. Instead, Europe was bent on usurping the whole of Ukraine to itself, despite the majority of people in eastern Ukraine refusing to support closer relations with the EU. When these people in Donbas protested against the new Western-backed government, Petro Poroshenko initiated an “anti-terrorist” operation that resulted in many ethnic Russian civilians dying in eastern Ukraine – a grave provocation towards Russia.

Is Russia really trying to re-build the Soviet Union?

The second assumption by the Western media claims that Russia is aiming to re-create the Soviet Union and is not going to stop its “expansion” in Crimea. However, there is virtually no evidence that Russia was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before the crisis in Ukraine began. President Putin’s actions in Crimea appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovich’s ouster. The Kremlin had no choice but to take Crimea, a peninsula President Putin feared would host a NATO naval base if Ukraine decided to join the Western military alliance.

Western media like to point to Russia’s short war with Georgia and claim that this was the first illustration of Russia’s attempt to re-conquer the former Soviet Union. However, to argue that Russia initiated the conflict with Georgia would be to re-write history. During the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military offensive against South Ossetia, in an attempt to reclaim the territory. This move was completely unprovoked. The Georgian attack caused casualties among Russian peacekeepers, who resisted the assault along with Ossetian militia. Russia reacted by deploying units of the Russian 58th Army and Russian Airborne Troops into South Ossetia one day later, and launched airstrikes against Georgian forces in South Ossetia and military and logistical targets in Georgia proper. It is now well established that the majority of experts, monitors and ambassadors agreed that the war was started by Georgia.

Ultimately, Russia was never interested nor is considering conquering or annexing any land. President Putin’s response to events in Ukraine has been defensive, not offensive.

Russia is protecting its own national interest

Western leaders and its media have good reason to portray Russia as the aggressor. It enables NATO to use the apparent belligerence of Russia as an excuse to carry on with their expansion that they started after the end of the Cold War. NATO has continued to provoke Russia with the recent announcement on the 15th September that about 1,300 troops from 15 countries – including the US and other NATO members – have begun a military exercise near Lviv in western Ukraine. In addition, Ukrainian Defence Minister Valery Heletey said that NATO countries had begun arming his nation. These measures are a clear national security threat to Russia. One only has to imagine how the United States would react if a Russian-backed alliance, for example the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, carried out military exercises in Mexico or Canada.

When it comes to its own national security, Russia will have to adopt any measures that achieve its own safety from external threats. Western media may brand these measures as examples of aggression, but when examining the facts, it is evident that it is the West that has acted and continues to act in a hostile manner towards Russia, leaving the Kremlin with no choice but to take defensive and precautionary measures.

Alexander Clackson is a London-based political consultant, commentator and analyst, he is the founder of Global Political Insight, and a frequent contributor to think-tanks and media outlets, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Russia’s deep rooted mistrust of NATO

During a time of crisis, when Russia’s relationship with the West is at its lowest point since the Cold War, engaging in an offensive move that involves building new permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe is a counter-productive move that further escalates an already precarious situation. NATO would be mistaken to assume that such a move would not jolt Russia to enact its own counter-measures that aim to protect its national interest and security. Western leaders argue that they have no choice but to utilise NATO to deter Russia from encroaching on other states in Eastern Europe, especially after NATO have claimed that Russia has around 1000 troops in Ukraine. But Russia will not accept this argument for the following reasons. Firstly, the Kremlin believes that it is not Russia, but the West that is responsible for the Ukrainian crisis. Moscow had no choice but to respond to the conflict on its border. As professor Stephen Cohen said in his interview with CNN, President Putin did not start the conflict, but has a responsibility to restore Russia’s traditional zones of national security on its borders. To Putin, and Russia as a whole, a Ukraine that is vehemently anti-Russian and pro-Western is a threat to Russian security, not least because Ukraine itself might join NATO one day. Putin was not pre-planning to take back Crimea and he certainly was not aiming to create instability in eastern Ukraine. As Professor John Mearsheimer stated in his article in Foreign Affairs magazine, those who believe Putin is aiming to “re-create a new Soviet Union” are completely misinterpreting the events. If Putin wanted to create a greater Russia, he would have laid the foundations for this long ago. But there is no evidence that he was considering taking Crimea or other parts of Ukraine. Instead, Russia is looking after its core interest. Therefore, NATO’s argument that its proposed expansion is a response to Russia’s “aggression” and potential future land grabs is flawed, because Russia is acting defensively, rather than offensively.

In addition, NATO’s potential expansion would confirm Kremlin’s fears that the ultimately objective of the Western military alliance is to surround Russia and encroach as close as possible to Russia’s border. Though NATO denies this claim, it has broken its promise to Russia many times in the past. After the end of the Cold War, Mikhail Gorbachev reportedly agreed to allow German reunification within NATO after being promised that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east.” Instead, in 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined the organisation. Another expansion came with the accession of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. These nations were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague summit, and joined NATO on 29 March 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. Most recently, Albania and Croatia joined on 1 April 2009, shortly before the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit. Other countries which have a stated goal of eventually joining include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Georgia.

From Russia’s point of view, NATO’s growth since the end of the Cold War continues for no other reason but to suffocate Russian borders with military bases. Moscow frequently asked why, if the West and Russia are no longer Cold War foes, NATO feels the need to continue to exist and to expand.  The West never gave a satisfactory response, thus feeding into Putin’s belief that NATO is on a mission to encircle Russia. The recent EU and US involvement in Ukraine only exacerbates this view.

Ultimately, Russia is not about to unleash its army on Eastern Europe looking to accumulate more land into its territory. It will, however, react to NATO’s proposed expansion, resulting in further insecurity on the European continent and unnecessary arms race.

Counter military alliance from China and Russia

In fact, NATO’s expansion is likely to galvanise Russia to speed up its own attempt to build up a regional military alliance with the members of the Customs Union (to become a Eurasian Economic Union on 1 January 2015), China and perhaps even Iran. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) currently includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.  There has recently been renewed discussion of the possible expansion of the group beyond the six members it has had since its founding. The SCO’s annual summit that will be held in Dushanbe in September 2014 will apparently be used to finalise an agreement on protocols for accepting new members. Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan are currently all observers, and India, Iran, and Pakistan in particular have been outspoken for many years about their desire to join as full members.

This week, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation held its biggest joint military exercises ever. The scale of the exercises suggests that the organisation, which had lately seemed to be focusing more on economic and law enforcement cooperation in Central Asia, may indeed be on a path to incorporating a military component. 7,000 troops from five countries were in China as part of the SCO’s “Peace Mission 2014” military drills. It included troops from China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in what Chinese media called “the largest SCO drill yet”.

NATO’s rejuvenated attempt at building new bases in Eastern Europe is likely to speed up the process of transforming the SCO into a full military alliance. A potential stand-off between the two competing military organisation would then be likely, resulting in high tension and a return to Cold War mentality for both sides.

Talks, not military expansion is the only solution

With trust between NATO and Russia at rock bottom, a quick-fix solution to the crisis is non-existent. However opening up real channels of communication between Russia and the West is still possible. It must be remembered that it is in the interest of both sides to cooperate on issues that matter to both sides: countering international terrorism, promoting nuclear non-proliferation, enabling space exploration, fighting cybercrime, finding a joint solution to the violence in the Middle East and tackling climate change. These areas should be used to start re-building trust between the two sides. Building new NATO bases in Eastern Europe would all but end any possibility for a dialogue, resulting in a long-term stand-off between East and West. Such an outcome would not be beneficial to either side.

Alexander Clackson is a London-based political consultant, commentator and analyst, he is the founder of Global Political Insight, and a frequent contributor to think-tanks and media outlets, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.