The war in Ukraine did not start on February 24, 2022 but on April 04, 1949 when 12 countries -- Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherland, Norway, Portugal, United States of America (USA) and United Kingdom(UK) -- representing the West formed a military alliance whose most crucial provision was Article 5 that said 'an attack on any member country would mean attack on all member countries'. At a time when peace was achieved by defeating Hitler's mighty military machine in a long and costly 'war to end all wars', the evocation of 'attack' was not only anomalous, but full of dark forebodings. It implied that these countries, led by America, and representing the West, suspected future 'attack' from a foe and that could only be Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) an ally in second world war, but an old adversary in the perception of the West on ideological ground.
Given the co-operation during the war against Hitler's Germany, there was some chance of burying the old hatchet and turn over a new leaf in international relations between the West and the USSR, with a new compact of peaceful co-existence. But this move of the west on the military front sowed the seed of what was soon reaped in the form of a cold war that involved a costly arms race. By forming NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) a line was drawn between the West and the USSR in Europe which was in fact the real Iron Curtain. For its part, the USSR did not react to the formation of the post-war military alliance in the West by taking any countervailing measure though it understood what it meant and against whom was it directed. But this development must have strengthened its suspicion that the capitalist West did not forget the animus that it had harboured since the emergence of the socialist state. With the formation of the Soviet bloc the old apprehension of the West might have been intensified, the USSR may have concluded. Thus the opportunity to pave the way for peaceful co- existence between the two economic and political systems was lost with the formation of a military alliance (NATO) by the West, led by America. The USSR kept its vigil and was on the outlook for further developments on this front. Soon there was a second wave of membership in NATO and Greece and Turkey became members in 1952. The USSR felt its southern flank exposed to hostile presence. But it still kept quiet and watched for further developments. When West Germany became a member in 1955, the USSR became concerned because Germans were the arch enemy, having attacked Russia most perfidiously during the second world war despite a peace treaty. It became imperative for USSR to respond with a similar military alliance. In May 1955 the Warsaw Pact was born with Russia and the central and East European countries of the Soviet bloc as members. Full blown cold war began, underpinned by an arms race.
Fast forward. When Berlin wall came down in 1989, and the two Germanies joined together, Russia (after the dissolution of USSR) agreed with NATO to include East Germany as a member under unified Germany with the condition that no NATO troop would be posted in the former East Germany soil
After the breakup of the former USSR there was a debate within President Bush's administration about enlargement of NATO eastward including central and east European countries of the former Soviet bloc as members. As a corollary to this, Defence Seretary Dick Cheney was in favour of accelerated collapse of USSR. But the secretary of state James Baker was in favour of keeping USSR intact arguing that it was essential to keep the arsenal of 35000 nuclear weapons in one hand rather than allowing it being fragmented in dangerously unpredictable ways. During 1991 and 1992 he embarked on repeated diplomatic missions to the crumbling Soviet Union in a desperate attempt to keep all nuclear weapons in one hand, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile in December, 1990 Ukraine declared itself as independent, making the dissolution of Soviet Union a fait accompli.
Bush's defeat in November 1992 Presidential election brought Bill Clinton to White House and the issue of NATO enlargement gained new urgency as the new President was keen to embrace the former Soviet bloc countries within its fold. Following President Clinton's foreign policy stance, at first the former countries were offered membership in what was called Partnership for Peace (PFP) which held the possibility of full membership of NATO at a later date. This incremental approach towards membership did not require the West to draw a line through post-Soviet cold war Europe. In good faith, Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries joined PFP, thinking that it would promote peace in Europe. PFP thus achieved something that NATO expansion to the east would not be able to have: unanimous acceptability by Russia and its satellite countries. It was a policy that avoided drawing a new line in Europe, reminiscent of the Iron curtain of cold war era while allowing the covert strategy of enlargement of NATO in an incremental manner without the risk of raising the hackles of Russia. But the victory of the Republican Party in the mid-term Congressional election in 1994 swung opinion in Clinton Administration in favour of accelerated enlargement of NATO as a vote-getting agenda. The devastating military campaign in breakaway Chechnya by Russia acted as an additional spur to this policy of Clinton Administration. Meanwhile Ukraine, holding the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, was persuaded under the Budapest Agreement in 1994, to either destroy or hand these over to Russia in exchange of security guarantee. In the wake of all these developments President Clinton became increasingly keen to draw a line in Europe separating Russia from its former Soviet bloc countries. The pressure from the defence establishment, National Security Council and State Department to abandon the incremental approach of PFP in favour of a policy of extending the full weight of the gold standard security under NATO's Article 5 won.
In the fourth wave of NATO enlargement the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became members in 1999. There was strong Russian objection to this. President Boris Yeltsin of Russia criticised this move as an attempt to revive the cold war when Russia was no longer belligerent in its attitude to the West. Brushing aside Russia's objections seven more former Soviet bloc countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) were made members of NATO in 2004 in the fifth wave of enlargement. The inclusion of the Baltic states, so near and strategically so vital, was particularly galling to Russia. It formally objected to the enlargement policy of NATO, stressing that it posed a threat to security. Paying no heed to Russia's objection, Albania and Croatia were made members in 2009 in the sixth wave of enlargement
In the seventh wave came membership of Montenegro in 2017. North Macedonia became the last country to become a NATO member in eastern Europe in the eighth wave of enlargement in 2020. Now, except Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine, all the former Soviet bloc countries are members of NATO, bringing NATO troops and missiles at the doorstep of Russia. Having its repeated objections ignored, Russia felt not only indignant but was also under a serious existential threat. As Ukraine took preliminary steps declaring its intention to become a NATO member, it proved to be the last straw. Russia annexed Crimea and warned of further consequences if Ukraine proceeded further towards membership. It also conveyed to the Western leaders its security cincerns and drew a red line in respect of Ukraine's NATO membership. The West and its military alliance NATO, acting like a state, pooh poohed the idea of redline and pointed out the sovereign right of Ukraine to decide about membership.
To ensure Ukraine's neutrality, Russia promoted an Ukranian politician,Victor Yanukovych during the Orange Revolution in 2004. In that year's election he defeated Victor Yushcenko,who had the support of the West. Amidst allegations of vote rigging there was recounting of ballots which declared Victor Yushchenko as the winner. In the 2010 election Viktor Yanukovich won and came to power amidst east- west tension over Ukraine's future foreign policy alignment, particularly NATO membership. WhenYanukovich pulled Ukraine out of a long negotiated pact with the European Union, a mass movement erupted under the banner of Revolution of Dignity which led to the unseating of the incumbent President. Russia suspected the hands of the West behind the Revolution of Dignity that led to the ouster of its protégée and paved the way to a pro-Western leader. It was at this point that Russia became concerned over the future direction of Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Simultaneously, it kept emphasising Ukraine's neutrality (code for no NATO membership) and removal of NATO troops from the former Soviet bloc countries. The west not only turned a deaf ear to the repeated statements about security concerns by Russian leaders, it encouraged the Ukrainian President to pursue its foreign policy as a sovereign state, assuring him of all support. President Putin and Russian Foreign minister cautioned their counterparts in America that NATO membership of Ukraine would cross a redline. This was scoffed at by them and other Western leaders. Meanwhile assistance in the form of lethal weopons to Ukraine continued along with training of combatants in the use of these. The West was priming Ukraine to fight a proxy war on NATO's behalf in the name of protecting it's sovereignty. Exasperated at the indifferent attitude of the West to its pleading and the openly pro-Western policy and uncompromising attitude of Ukraine's President, Russia started a military exercise on its territory and in Belarus to drive home the seriousness of its security concerns, both to the West and Ukraine. This unprecedented mobilisation of the Russian armed forces failed to convince America and its allies and also Ukraine about the seriousness of Russia's security concerns and the urgency of making concessions. At the least, Russia expected a moratorium of Ukraine's NATO membership. Instead, all it received in response were bravado and defiance from Ukraine President Zelensky and threat of sweeping economic sanctions from the leaders of the West. Waiting for nearly a month with its biggest peace time mobilisation as a subtle warning, Russia was in the event forced to invade Ukraine.
Seeing the scale and severity of deaths and destructions in Ukraine, it is natural to express horror and abomination against Russia for its 'war crimes'. But is Russia alone guilty of the crimes? If the West and Ukraine took the security concerns of Russia seriously and attempted to find a compromise, this devastating war would not have happened.
If one looks back at the history of NATO and its policy of enlargement after the dissolution of Soviet Russia, one cannot escape the conclusion that it is primarily responsible for the war in Europe. NATO is not a state, though it struts like one on world stage, it embodies the military- industrial complex that guides the foreign policies of the governments of the West. For its survival it is crucial to have foes and to invent them if there is none. After the end of cold war there was no need for a military alliance in Europe. A new world order could be created on the basis of equality, co-operation and peaceful co-existence. But that would mean a death knell of the military-industrial complex that survives and thrives on conflicts and war. In Ukraine, it is the merchants of death who are celebrating victory as the grim reaper continues to take its toll. Part of the celebration is for remaining unnoticed and finding a scapegoat for their crimes.
hasnat.hye5@gmail.com