We do not know yet, if the Russian military and diplomatic “initiative” concerning Ukraine is leading to a war or if it paves the way towards a new East-West detente in Europe. Let us consider which changes would be necessary to avoid war and open the way towards peace. It would afford some drastic rethinking of European security by all sides, no doubt about it - but it could solve not only the Ukraine crisis and other current crises in and around Europe but open the way for a cooperation on important issues from global heath to climate policies.
Russian approach towards its neighbors
Russian foreign, and especially neighborhood or “near abroad”, policy is predominantly characterized by supporting and protecting autocratic regimes. The unfortunate alliance with the Belorussian dictator and the recent military support for the Kazakh President against the demonstrators in his own country are proof of the strong interest of President Putin to have a ring of autocratic leaders around his country. Therefore, the changes in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution and the deposing of President Yanukovych were a disaster in Putin’s eyes.
It is not only the direct threat by foreign forces, President Putin fears. He wants a comfort zone around his country. If necessary, he is adding – for Russia - friendly territory by extending Russian borders into neighboring countries, as in the case of annexing Crimea. But President Putin is also defining the “real” interests of the people of neighboring countries, as he did with the Ukrainian people. In his article “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” Putin stated: “… modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet area. We know and remember well that it was shaped - for a significant part - on the lands of historical Russia… It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.” With that “definition’ he did not reject the possibility of an independent Ukraine, but it can only be successful in close cooperation with the other part of the “one people”.
Indirectly, Putin defined and created a fluent border between Russia and Ukraine - as already realized in Donbas - of course to the advantage of the big brother in Moscow. It is not by chance that Putin is again and again using history - or his interpretation of it - to strengthen and justify his domestic and foreign policy strategies. The recent shutting down of the NGO MEMORIAL is in line with “correcting” the history of Russia - black spots and the pollution of the great Russian history are not welcome and must be punished. History must serve the national interests - and also the personal interests of the leaders.
In this connection the complaint about the “most tragic event of the last century” - the breakdown of the Soviet Union - is not so much showing Putin’s willingness to reestablish the Soviet Union, but his desire to create a ring of countries free from “enemy” armies and too much democratic governance. Consequently, he is demanding a ring of countries forming a sphere of influence - for Russia and for himself as long-term President. Lilia Shevtsova, author of different books about Putin’s Russia wrote recently in the New York Times: “Mr.Putin’s design is grand: to refashion the post-Cold War settlement, in the process guaranteeing the survival of Russia’s personalized power system.”
Recognizing a Russian sphere of influence?
The demand for a sphere of influence is not new or surprising if we look to the behavior of other big countries like the US or China. At the end, countries or leaders feel big and powerful only, if they have such depending countries around them. In times when arms are overcoming long distances easily and the space is more and more militarized, this concentration on a friendly neighborhood sounds strange and superfluous. But leaders, especially autocratic leaders feel themselves more comfortable with friends around their borders, even if these friends must be forced to be friends.
Russia and especially President Putin is also using - or better misusing - history for supporting his empire aspirations. Again, he is realistic enough not to dream of a resurrected Soviet Union - but as the Russian expert Wladyslaw L. Inosemzew recently wrote in the N.Z.Z., Russia does not know the existence as a nation state. It is built like the Russian puppets Matrojschka with Moscow in the center and many regions depending on it. As President Putin is neither modernizing the Russian economy and society nor looking for another effective multinational organization like the European Union, his main aim is to defend the Moscow led empire by preserving or reestablishing a ring of semi-sovereign countries.
Even if these are the aspirations of President Putin, that does not mean, that he must be successful in realizing his ideas. That depends very much on the West and its reaction to the Russian demands. The West - NATO and the European Union - were successful by extending their organizations. This was not done by force and threats but by offers, mainly economic offers. Of course, also the promises concerning basic human rights and freedoms played an important part. For Russia the extension of NATO was particularly painful. It did not and still does not represent a direct military threat, but it does challenge the concept of a sphere of influence for Russia. As Nina. L. Khrushcheva recently wrote: “… what Russians want is not to revive the USSR, but rather to preserve their country’s status and influence, which means maintaining its sphere of influence. The notion that the West could pursue an eastward expansion of NATO without pushbacks was always pure folly”.
If it was a folly or if it was done according to the principle “trial and error”, there was certainly a “pressure” of many former Warsaw pact countries to join NATO. NATO, especially the US, were happy to fully use the victory over communism and being able to keep the alliance alive and even strengthened it. Nevertheless, whatever the motivations and the conditions of NATO enlargement were, Nina Khrushcheva and many other observers are right, when they argue that NATO enlargement would have repercussions from the Russian side. So, it would be logic and consequential to stop NATO enlargement at last now.
But Russian behavior in Ukraine, Georgia and Transnistria have had a detrimental effect. The call for NATO membership was promoted and strengthened, especially in the countries which suffered by Russian interference in their domestic political scene. The violation of national sovereignty, especially of Georgia and Ukraine, is not only contradicting Russian insistence on non-interference, but was also not helpful to meet Russia’s security concerns - but Putin is a leader who knows well the language of power and is not used to act with respect for psychological considerations.
Ukrainian specialties
Is there a way out of the present stalemate? Well concerning Ukraine there are two immediate and open issues which are difficult to tackle. The first one is the Russian interference in Eastern Ukraine where they are fighting closely with radical separatists. It will not be easy to convince Russia to stop to support these separatists. The second issue is what to do about all those who already received Russian citizenship? Would Russia refrain from using them as “5th brigade” in case the area would be incorporated in Ukraine again?
Even if these issues could be solved, what about Crimea? One could of course argue, that probably with a correct referendum most of its population would vote to remain in Russia, but would Russia agree to such an internationally observed referendum and what about those Ukrainians who have lost their property in the Crimea? Putin was clever or shrewd enough to create facts which could not be easily changed in any agreement, or which would give Russia an important influence even if the territories like the Donbas area, Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Transnistria would be reunited or incorporated with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova respectively. The widespread award of Russian citizenship to citizens in contested areas of neighboring countries is a measure to guarantee long term Russian influence.
Ways forward
All issues could finally be solved, if both sides would rethink their attitudes to each other and a new approach to security would be designed. The Western side would have to stop NATO expansion. In addition, concepts of a new and comprehensive European security system would have to be designed as an alternative. These ideas would have to be discussed and further developed jointly with Russia. As Charles A. Kupchan wrote recently: “NATO should reassure the Kremlin that it is not about to integrate Ukraine or turn the country into a forward outpost of the West’s best weaponry. Although Russia’s aggression against and coercion of its neighbors is unacceptable, it’s concern about a militarized Ukraine entering NATO is understandable. Major powers don’t like it when other major powers show up on their doorstep.”
It should be added that small nations do not like to be bullied around, told what they must do and threatened by a big power on their footsteps, if they do what they “should not” do. This means that Russia would have to develop a new thinking about power and influence. Russia would have to consider what kind of offer they can make to the people of neighboring countries. For the moment, Russia is predominantly offering support and help to the autocratic leaders to keep them in power and fight off democratic movements and aspirations. It is an old-fashioned help, but for the moment it works, at least for the leaders in Belorussia and Kazakhstan, who are grateful, that they can continue their autocratic and dictatorial rule.
The alternative approach would be to cooperate with the sovereign neighbors in enhancing political, economic and cultural ties with all neighboring people, perhaps with special emphasis on the Russian speaking part of the population - but this is a different concept to the one of thinking in empire terms. Probably, we are already in the realm of dreaming, but as the present situation is particular dangerous and risky, we should also dream of a better future and think about ways to slowly approach the beautiful landscape we are dreaming of - even if it will be not easy.
As an Austrian I would specifically dream about a solution with neutrality for countries like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus. Heinz Gärtner has already, for a long time now, argued in that direction. It is good to see, that several US experts are taking up these arguments in their proposals to solve the Ukrainian crisis. Anyway, to keep a future membership in NATO open for Ukraine and Georgia without thinking seriously about realizing it, does not create more security in Europe generally of for these countries specifically. So, one should come to a more realistic approach - but of course also Russia would have to offer to take some steps away from their position. A new kind of relationship is not only necessary for its immediate neighbors outside the EU but also for EU member countries who had negative experience with Russia and/or the Soviet Union.
What I wanted to add to these proposed immediate security solutions are some arguments concerning the necessary additional changes in the overall European security approach on both sides. Security in Europe can never be guaranteed against Russia but only with Russia. But as difficult as it is for both sides to change their traditional thinking and behavior, the Russian conception of power and influence is fundamentally in contradiction to respectful neighborhood. Nevertheless, we also have to dream in order to overcome dangerous situations - but while dreaming we should not forget the realities and we have to think about the conditions we have to create to come close to our dreams. Let us hope that the discussions between Russian and US experts starting these days are opening a path to more stability and peace in Europe and beyond.
P.S. Join the virtual discussion on “Peaceful Solutions for Ukraine”, January 17, at 3.00 PM (CET), organized by IIP and Neutrality Studies.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.