Post
by macliam » Sat Feb 19 2022 2:00pm
Propaganda is very much at play here - on both sides. However, we have been conditioned to view Putin as the big bad wolf (or is that bear?) - but this does feel a bit like a continuation of "America saving the world" now that Iraq and Afghanistan have been abandoned.
Putin likes to show himself as the tough guy at home and Russia has continued its historical interference in neighbouring states. In the absence of the financial and commercial levers of power available to the USA , and due to a Russian preference for direct action, such interference has tended to be military as well as diplomatic. However, such states tend to have large ethnic-Russian or Russian-speaking populations and that makes the situation somewhat different to US extra-territorial incursions over the past century and more.
To look from the "other" side, the end of the Soviet era saw the dismantlement not only of the USSR and its expanded empire, but also of the historic Russian heartlands - Ukraine and Belarus in particular - remembering that Ukraine had not seen any form of independence from Russian rule since the C18th and was never a unified territory within its current borders. So, there are those in Russia (Putin amongst them) who regret this loss of "Russian" territory and influence and the increased fragmentation. This plays into a fundamental Russian mindset that it is surrounded by malign enemies - a mindset that stretches back to Czarist times and has historical evidence to support it. This "regret" isn't really difficult to understand - imagine the USA being split into countries that reflect historical influence back to that same period.... Alaska going back to Russia, other tracts going back to France or Spain and the rest, beyond the original 13 states of the Continental congress being "up for grabs". Imagine the chagrin of seeing this applauded and encouraged by old "enemies". Indeed, look at the continued influence of the imperial mindset on the British worldview and recent events in Europe.
On the NATO side, the organization has been under the cosh for the last few years and desperately needs to reinforce its relevance. Firstly, Trump's lukewarm support and the very limited demand for increased military spending by European partners endangered the organization's coherence if not its very existence; Then there is the "danger" of greater European reliance on Russian oil and gas, particularly with Nord Stream 2 due to come online (against American wishes); Then there are changes to the political atmosphere, the continued refusal of Finland to join the organization and other "frontier" countries like Poland and Hungary not "toeing the line" - plus the potentially huge carrot of Ukraine siding with NATO. Given the limited relevance of NATO in other areas of "concern" (the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and diminishing US influence over Europe, nothing could encourage a rebuilding of the NATO alliance more than the threat of aggression by Russia.
In the middle is Ukraine, a "new" state, desperately struggling for coherence amongst territory and peoples who have little historical unity. A state that, like its neighbour to the north, remained a pro-Russian satellite in post-Soviet years until the Orange revolution in 2004.... after which it became a key geopolitical prize. The 2013 Maidan protests saw this escalate as the right-wing and ultranationalists gained influence - alienating a Russia who not only lost its buffer to NATO, but also saw the pendulum swing further in favour of anti-Russian political forces - and this underpins the ongoing hostilities of the past decade. Again, before buying into the propaganda of either side, imagine the mindset of people in Eastern Ukraine, forced to choose between their historical, linguistic and familial connections to Russia and loyalty to a state that seems to be sidelining them in favour of "foreign" influences and the desire to look westwards.
So basically, both "major powers" have irons in the fire here..... and there are few "innocents" apart from those who will be impacted by yet another wave of disruption, if not actually becoming victims of war. Perhaps it's worth reigning in jingoistic language and stoking the fire of conflict, in favour of considering the real situation for the people directly involved - unlike what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me.....
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me