Skip to main content

Russia-Ukraine conflict: Russia cripples NATO’s rising influence (Part 2)

THE current scenario is exceedingly dangerous, according to United Nations Under-Secretary-General and head of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), Rosemary DiCarlo, who also noted that the reasons underlying the crisis are both complicated and long-standing. 

She also discussed the broader European security architecture, emphasising that while the problem may appear intractable, it can and must be resolved through diplomacy.

She expressed her disappointment that diplomatic talks in the Normandy Four format and the Trilateral Contact Group have stalled. She emphasised that the 2015 Minsk Agreements Package of Measures for Implementation remained the sole UNSC-approved framework for a negotiated, peaceful settlement. 

Mikko Kinnunen, the OSCE’s Special Representative for the Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine and a member of the Trilateral Contact Group, emphasised the importance of the OSCE, Russian Federation, and Ukraine continuing to engage and eventually implementing all aspects of the Minsk agreements. 

The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine’s Chief Monitor, Yaşar Halit Cevik, noted that the Mission has recorded twice as many daily ceasefire violations since the beginning of this year as it did during the same period last year, as well as an increase in civilian casualties as a result of shelling and small arms fire. 

The OSCE stands for Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organisation, with 57 member states from Europe, Central Asia, and North America.

The OSCE takes a holistic approach to security, taking into account politico-military, economic, environmental, and human factors. 

As a result, it covers a wide variety of security issues, including arms control, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, national minorities, democratisation, policing techniques, counter-terrorism, and economic and environmental operations. 

All 57 member countries are treated equally, and decisions are reached by consensus on a political, but not legally binding, basis. Ukraine, Russia, the US and Belarus are among the OSCE’s members. 

 

As a result, the OSCE can serve as another platform for member nations to work out a peaceful solution to this conflict. Even if they have failed to resolve this disagreement on this platform on several occasions, the process must continue until the parties involved reach an agreement that is in the best interests of all parties involved. 

War is not the solution; rather, it produces a slew of interconnected sub-conflicts that will obliterate humanity’s future existence.

Tetiana Montian, a Ukrainian civil society activist, on the other hand, claims that Kyiv has no intention of executing the Minsk agreements. She stated that people in the eastern Donbass region are not represented in politics and are even being criminally punished, and that free thought in Ukraine is being suppressed and civilians are being denied of their civic rights. 

She referred to Ukraine as a Western colony, claiming that the true goal of Western nations is to entice Russia into a conflict. She emphasised that the OSCE has remained oblivious to the shelling and other forms of violence perpetrated by Ukrainian soldiers.

The purpose of this meeting, according to Sergey Vershinin, Russian Federation Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Council President for February, is to reiterate support for the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. 

However, seven years after its signature, Ukraine’s authorities have made it clear that they have no plans to follow the accords, which they describe as having been signed at the gunpoint. 

Indeed, Kyiv has steadfastly refused to engage in direct negotiations, has failed to restore economic ties between the two countries, and has refused to grant special status to some regions as required by the agreements. 

He also chastised Western states for turning a blind eye to such flagrant transgressions.

The United Kingdom’s Minister of State for Europe and North America, James Cleverly, restated his support for the Minsk agreements and emphasised that all parties must fully follow them. 

 

The Ukrainian people are once again under threat of invasion by Russian troops, heavy armament, and military vessels amassed along their borders, from Belarus to the Black Sea, according to the statement. 

He was particularly concerned that Russian Federation diplomats in OSCE negotiations had consistently failed to show up at the negotiating table.

While many difficulties remain, Germany’s delegate stated that the reaffirmation of the ceasefire in July 2020 demonstrated that progress is achievable provided political will exists. 

In a different tone, China’s delegate commended Russia’s recent diplomatic interaction with the leaders of France, Germany, and other countries. He said the steady growth and extension of  the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a vestige of the cold war in eastern Europe, must be addressed because its aim runs opposed to contemporary trends, emphasising that European countries should make independent and strategic decisions. 

Indeed, flexing muscles cannot ensure regional stability, he added, pointing out that one NATO country refuses to let go of its cold war mentality and continues to exacerbate tensions in the Asia-Pacific basin.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s delegation expressed great worry over the Russian State Duma’s demand to recognise the occupied sections of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions as “peoples’ republics.” 

He warned that such a move would violate the Minsk agreements and jeopardise the prospects for peace, and that Ukraine would defend itself if the situation escalated further. 

In a nutshell, this is an artificial conflict exacerbating by the US, whose hegemony is under threat, by inventing a non-existent conflict in order to drag Russia into it, then isolating them through economic sanctions to eliminate the threat of a hard enemy, and then re-shifting to deal with an emerging enemy, China.

The Minsk agreements

In 2014 and 2015, the Ukraine and Russia signed two accords in Minsk, capital of Belarus.

The Minsk 1 agreement was reached in September 2014 where Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists agreed to a 12-point truce. It includes provisions for prisoner exchanges, humanitarian relief delivery, and the removal of heavy armaments. The arrangement immediately fell apart, with both parties breaking it.

The Minsk 2 agreement was signed in February 2015 in Minsk by representatives from Russia, Ukraine, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the leaders of two pro-Russian separatist areas. 

The agreement outlined a number of military and political actions that have yet to be undertaken. Russia’s claim that it is not a party to the conflict and hence is not bound by its terms has been a major roadblock. 

The following are some of the 13 points in accordance with this agreement: a rapid and thorough ceasefire; both parties withdrawing all heavy weapons; OSCE monitoring and verification; to begin a dialogue on interim self-government for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in accordance with Ukrainian legislation, and to recognise their unique status by a parliament resolution; full control of the state border by Ukraine’s government; withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and mercenaries; constitutional reform in Ukraine, including decentralisation, with a focus on Donetsk and Luhansk; Intensify the activities of a Trilateral Contact Group that includes Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE.

Both agreements provide a comprehensive solution to Russia’s and Ukraine’s ongoing conflict. The UN Security Council, as an international organisation, must play the role of an independent mediator, encouraging both countries to adhere to these agreements rather than being used by other countries to achieve their hidden agenda.

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

Last week, India, the US Japan, and Australia met in Melbourne, Australia, for the QUAD or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. China’s destabilising position in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as Russian aggression in Ukraine, were discussed by the leaders.

Quad, they claim, is promoting a constructive vision for the future of Indo-Pacific that is based on shared values. They anticipate the US and Quad will continue to engage with countries and multilateral organisations in the Indo-Pacific, particularly ASEAN, which will continue to play a major role in American engagement with the area.

The Quad is an informal strategic forum and working towards a free, open, prosperous, and inclusive Indo-Pacific area is one of the Quad’s core goals. It is seen as a grouping of marine democracies.

The Quad’s goal is to preserve the Indo-Pacific critical maritime corridors free of any military or political influence. It is primarily regarded as a strategic alliance focused at minimising Chinese dominance. 

For the US, this region is crucial for trade. The Indo-Pacific, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, covers two oceans and numerous continents, making it vital to US maritime interests. 

In 2019, the area saw US$1.9 tril in commerce from the US. According to a UN report, 42% of global exports and 38% of global imports are expected to travel through this region.

The QUAD and OSCE organisations, of which the US is a member. China is not included in these organisations. Despite the fact that Russia is a member of the OSCE, it is seen as an enemy, and they have been “defeated” by the US on multiple occasions in the past. 

Russia does not outperform the US or China economically. As a result, China, rather than Russia, is the greatest threat to US dominance as the world’s unipolar superpower.

Conclusion

NATO, led by the US, has a policy of not attacking countries that have nuclear weapons. Take, for example, North Korea or Iran. 

Unlike in Iraq, where the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspection panel dismantled all of Saddam Hussein’s weapons, the US and its allies swiftly won the war in Iraq.

Russia has a vast stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including nuclear weapons, and their army is one of the most technologically advanced in the world. They also had nuclear submarines that were difficult to detect.

Russia is pursuing the progressive integration of asymmetric force multiplier technology into its established and legacy military systems, according to a Chatham House assessment.  

As per the report, the defence sector is creating new military robotics systems and capabilities, and it has successfully incorporated unmanned vehicles, particularly aerial drones, into military operations. 

 

Furthermore, Russia is working on developing capabilities that might potentially counter and damage an adversary’s satellite activities in space. 

Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) is being created with the goal of disrupting Western command and control systems and communication facilities, as well as establishing information superiority.

As a result, the Indo-Pacific region, rather than Europe, may be the next potential conflict zone, as the actual challenge to US supremacy is China, not Russia, and the US is gradually increasing its military assets in this region while also tightening collaboration among the countries in this region. 

For instance, the US has recently stated a wish to rebuild friendships with Pacific island states such as the Solomon Islands, where the US intends to re-establish its embassy in Honiara after it was closed in 1993. 

And are we aware of the impact that a war between world superpowers in the Indo-Pacific area will have on Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly Malaysia, and how we will protect ourselves from this potential battle that will jeopardise our economic and security? – Feb 24, 2022. 

Source: https://focusmalaysia.my/russia-ukraine-conflict-russia-denting-natos-rising-influence-part-2/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

India-Malaysia ties and the future

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is on his first official visit to India. The main aim of this visit is to seek support for Malaysia’s application to join Brics and to fortify bilateral ties, as the country is keen to improve its connections with one of the rapidly expanding economies in Asia. In light of the increasing crumbling of the global order, particularly stemming from trade disputes between the United States and China, as well as the proxy conflict involving the United States and Russia, Malaysia is encouraged to reassess its foreign policy to uphold its neutral stance. Given India’s status as the largest democracy and the fifth-largest economy globally, along with its notable advancements in indigenous space and defence technologies, it is proposed that India emerge as Malaysia’s key partner in the years ahead. Why India is important for Malaysia The historical ties between India and Malaysia extend back several centuries, with significant Indian cultural, religious, and administ...

THE HISTORY OF TERRORISM: MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT

The history of terrorism dates back at least 1500 years when Jewish resistance groups (66 - 72 A.D.) known as Zealots killed Roman soldiers and destroyed Roman property. The term assassin comes from a Shi'ite Muslim sect (Nizari Isma'ilis - also known as hashashins "hashish-eaters") fighting Sunni Muslims (1090 - 1275) and during Medieval Christendom resisting occupation during the Crusades (1095-1291). The hashashins were known to spread terror in the form of murder, including women and children. The brotherhood of Assassins committed terror so as to gain paradise and seventy-two virgins if killed and to receive unlimited hashish while on earth. The modern development of terrorism began during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror (1793 - 1794). During this period the term terrorism was first coined. Through the past two hundred years, terrorism has been used to achieve political ends and has developed as a tool for liberation, oppression, and i...

The by-election in Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) and the Indian electorate

  I was born in Malaysia, belonging to the Indian ethnic group, which constitutes approximately 7% of the country's total population. My durable credence is that I am Malaysian first and foremost, and only then do I identify myself as Indian. Regrettably, it saddens me to witness and hear about the actions of certain politicians who question my loyalty to Malaysia. What is even more disheartening is that some Malaysians have been influenced by the manipulative rhetoric of these self-serving politicians. Recently, I have observed numerous discussions on both mainstream and online news platforms regarding the recognition and inclusion of Indians by ruling parties. Surprisingly, even the opposition has displayed a significant interest in the welfare of Indians. Upon contemplating the reasons behind this sudden surge in attention towards Indians, it becomes evident that it is primarily driven by the upcoming Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) by-election. It is noteworthy that such ...