The Russian-Ukrainian conflict: The West’s major challenge

Apr 29

Apr 29 The Russian-Ukrainian conflict: The West’s major challenge

When Joe Biden’s administration set out its foreign policy vision, it was clear that a more assertive approach towards Russia was inevitable. In an increasingly multipolar world order, the global influence that the US spent so many years building through both its hard and soft power resources has continued to decrease. A major and regular threat to US foreign policy interests is Russia, with the rejection of NATO expansion in its neighbourhood threatening the diffusion of American values in Europe. Russia is promising to be the challenge that will almost certainly define the Biden presidency’s foreign policy record. Recent developments reflect this, with Biden’s approach to this issue being tested as early as just 100 days into office.

In recent years Russia’s relations with Ukraine have been reflective of its resistance to the influence of Western institutions in its sphere of influence. The 2014 Ukraine crisis developed after the Ukrainian parliament delayed the signing of an agreement with the European Union, opting to maintain close ties with Russia. This resulted in Euromaidan, a series of violent protests that targeted corruption in the Ukrainian government. Russia proceeded to annex Crimea, describing this action as defending the interests and security of the Crimean population that it considered historically attached to Russia. Moreover, ‘Russian backed’ separatist groups initiated uprisings in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine in opposition to the Ukrainian government. This escalated into a full-scale military conflict between Ukraine and these groups. Since 2014, Western powers have consistently denounced this approach for violating international law and infringing on Ukraine’s territorial integrity. For Russia, however, relations with countries like Ukraine and Georgia continue to have fundamental geopolitical implications. Both nations are progressively leaning towards the West, with NATO and EU membership desired by significant portions of the population. These are interpreted by Russia as direct threats to its interests and sphere of influence, crucial in shaping its aggressive response and broader approach in its neighbourhood.

The recent escalation of tensions at the Russian-Ukrainian border served as a reminder of not just the possibility of armed conflict between the sides but also of the wider implications the crisis has for international affairs. Six years after the crisis began, major peace initiatives such as the Minsk Protocol have failed to ease tensions. Recently, Russia initiated a “large-scale” military build-up along the Ukrainian border. Activity has been observed to Ukraine’s east, north and south, with air forces expected to carry out “common operational tasks” in the upcoming week. It is believed this is a direct response to a recent ‘crackdown’ against pro-Russian media and politicians in Kiev. With mediation efforts led by France and Germany failing to achieve any meaningful progress, the situation is heavily conditioned by the nature of relations between Moscow and Kiev. President Zelensky has managed to revive some domestic support by imposing sanctions on several pro-Russian media outlets and oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, ally of President Putin. Moreover, the newly published national security strategy makes it clear that NATO membership remains a foreign policy priority for Ukraine. These decisions have all influenced the Russian response, with an aggressive build-up raising fears of a potential military confrontation.

This escalation has serious implications for a wide range of international actors. For Ukraine, there is the imminent danger and threat of Russian military activity that Ukrainian troops would seriously struggle to resist. As the nation seeks deeper integration with the West, Russia’s military position is a powerful one given its control over Crimea and influence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. President Zelensky faces the danger of upsetting certain groups in society that accuse his approach as “over-conciliatory” towards Russia. Realistically, however, neither side is interested in a full-scale conflict with the Russian public unlikely to accept military action at this particular time. Despite the failure of previous initiatives, dialogue supported through international mediation is crucial to avoid the crisis from escalating into a war. Russia, through this build-up, is showing a clear willingness to resort to military force if its direct interests in the Donbas region are impacted.

For the West, the Ukraine conflict is a clear area through which the Biden administration and other European nations can publicly oppose what is considered to be a violation of international law. Insisting on the fulfilment of the Minsk protocol that would see the ‘separatist republics’ integrate into Ukraine, Russia argues this agreement is the basic requirement for any compromise to be possible. There is concern about the extent to which Ukraine might benefit from US and NATO support in the case a military confrontation occurs. The US has led Western criticism of recent Russian military activity, highlighting actions in Crimea as violating the sovereignty of another state. European leaders, however, have adopted a rather passive approach and this is best reflected by Ukrainian concerns of ‘false promises’ that are constantly made by Western leaders. A recent meeting between the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, the NATO Secretary General and the US Secretary State underlined the agreement of the sides on the threat posed by Russia. The Foreign Minister, however, raised concerns that Western powers needed to do more than just mere words and instead engage in actively supporting Ukraine. In particular, options such as ‘sanctions’ or ‘additional military support’ were mentioned as Ukraine emphasizes its desire to act early and avoid more serious consequences from occurring. If a severe escalation is to be prevented Western actors must act firmer by not only voicing their discontent but acting in a way that disincentives Russia from pursuing an even more aggressive plan.

Ukraine is a unique case partly because of the possibility of joining NATO. Often referred to as located along the “border of the democratic world”, both the US and Russia are aware of its geopolitical significance. Hence, the build-up, given its scale and unforeseeable nature has rightly raised concerns. Russia’s position in Donetsk and Lugansk remains very influential given the threat posed by separatists. This concern is reflected by the US, as it has been willing to sell anti-tank missiles and launchers to Ukraine. Its military is certainly more prepared than in 2014 but Russian superiority remains undeniable. In addition to separatist forces operating with Russian support, the government is clearly reliant on both external diplomatic and military support to act as a counterweight to Russia. The Kremlin’s objectives in Ukraine are clearly aimed at the long-term, with constant attempts to integrate Eastern parts of Ukraine into Russia showing no signs of slowing down. One clear example of this is the issuing of passports to people in these regions. Over the last two years around 650,000 have been issued, highlighting the Russian government’s treatment of these parts of the Ukrainian population as its own.

There is no doubt that Ukraine will be the epicentre of the resistance presented by Joe Biden to Putin’s Russia. The conflict is of vital importance for both European and international security. NATO expansion impacting the integration of Ukraine and Georgia into Western institutions is a direct threat to the Kremlin’s foreign policy vision. This case also has important implications for the transatlantic relationship. The US, especially through the rhetoric of the new administration, has been an active opponent of the Russian foreign policy. The EU and leading European countries more generally must ensure America is not alone in voicing these concerns. The EU has often been criticised for failing to adopt a coherent approach to important foreign policy issues affecting the Western order. Its policies towards China and Russia alternate between resistance through sanctions and conciliatory, diplomatic measures such as the December 2020 economic agreement allowing greater market access for Chinese firms. The Ukraine crisis has proven to be a very early, but decisive test for the new Administration’s approach to Russia, with President Biden’s individual foreign policy career marked by his work on Ukraine as Vice-President. Most crucially, the severity of the crisis promises to be a leading factor in shaping Russia’s broader relationship with the West.