IT is mindboggling that a statesman like Vladimir Putin, who had earlier asked for Nato membership, has now become its bitter rival. After coming to power, Putin had asked for Nato membership and so did Mikhail Gorbachev at the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Moreover, Putin was quick to contact George Bush after 9/11, offering him troops and access to Central Asian countries for any counter-terrorism campaign.

From 1992 to 2007, the Russian attitude was that of a pacifist, while the West, led by the United States, bombed the Balkans, enlarged the Nato eastward, and continuously armed the Russian neighbours. The bid to bring Ukraine into its sphere of influence turned out to be the last straw on the proverbial camel’s back. The bear has been pushed to the extent that it had no option but to retaliate. In effect, it means the culprit in the ongoing crisis is not Putin, but the West.

The conventional wisdom in the West is that Putin is aggressive and bent upon ‘rebuilding the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton even compared him with Adolf Hitler. The advocates of this claim give regaining of Crimea and Ukraine invasion as evidence of Moscow’s desire to keep things moving.

This is a false claim because Russia is a ‘super power in decline’; considering its economy and other factors, it cannot target expansion even if it wishes to. Besides, we have a geopolitical lesson from Afghanistan, Iraq and other invasions that an imperial power cannot oppress nationalism for long and is bound to be on its knees.

The Kremlin has been responsive in its actions only after the Nato’s Bucharest Summit in 2008, which proclaimed that Ukraine would soon become part of Nato. This was further confirmed by the coup against president Viktor Yanukovych which made Moscow even more insecure.

Russia could not let the strategically important port of Sevastopol in the Black Sea to become a Nato naval base.

Additionally, the 2013 bill passed in Ukraine limited autonomy and suppressed linguistic freedom of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, forcing Russia to regain Crimea. After that, there was a brief pause in hostilities between Russia and the West until the Trump administration started militarising Ukraine and bombing Siberia through Ukraine and Georgia.

This can be understood by the assumption that if Russia or China gets into a military alliance with Mexico or Canada, would it not anger the West? The Cuban missile crisis is a perfect example to understand the argument.

Hence, it was not Russia that marched to the West, rather the West walked to the Kremlin doors. It was obvious and natural that Moscow would retaliate.

In a mess created by the West, the solutions it is presenting seem unrealistic. Dialogues would hardly work since there is no trust left. There have been dialogues since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but every time the Kremlin has felt deceived.

US secretary James Baker had promised that Nato would not expand; such promises were repeated after each expansion in 1999 and 2004. No security assurances were given to Russia, and no protection of the rights of the minority groups in Ukraine was offered. Ukraine’s absurd foreign policy, supported by the US, made matters worse.

The better way forward is to use Ukraine as a buffer between Russia and the West which was there before 2014. Furthermore, Nato’s eastward march has no justification and should cease.

Lastly, the ethnic groups should be given freedom to practise their own culture and use their own language.

This has been repeated in dialogues in Minsk. It is hight time the West embraced the realities and responsibilities of the crisis created by its hegemonic ambitions.

Muhammad Sharif Otho
Sobhodero

Published in Dawn, March 10th, 2022