People in Ukraine are going through tremendous hardship. People all over the world are saddened by the news of loss of lives and destruction of properties. They are the one facing the brunt right now and probably Russians will face different types of hardships, at least in the near future, through the economic sanctions. Everyone else is, more or less, sitting on the fence or in the gallery, and watching the events unfold.
The question is
why all diplomatic negotiations failed and why the war could not be averted?
Moreover, where does India stand here? India has already abstained from the
UNSC vote on deploring Russia and India has taken the absolutely right step
here. When drum beats of war fade a little, there must be someone, who took a
neutral stand, to mediate between two waging sides. India can take a crucial
part there.
In order to
understand how the world landed in this situation, we need to follow some events
of the last few decades. Calling Putin, a fascist, a new avatar of Adolf Hitler
is just a lazy escapist idea taken directly out of some mainstream media
outlets. No, I am not a Putin apologist. There is no doubt Putin has
demonstrated enough totalitarian behavior in Russian domestic affairs. Here I
will provide a brief and dispassionate description of some of the American
foreign policies that will help us to understand both sides better from a
neutral standpoint.
Monroe Doctrine and Cuban Missile Crisis
Monroe Doctrine
was first brought into effect in 1823 by US President James Monroe. It defines the
Western Hemisphere as the area of American influence. Originally it was
designed in order to keep the European colonialists away from setting up bases
in the Western Hemisphere.
United States of
America has been involved in multiple military imbroglios in the Latin America
on the basis of this doctrine. In early 1900 during the Venezuelan Crisis,
United States locked its horn with three European powers – Britain, Germany and
Italy to protect Venezuela from European intervention and retain its own
influence. During the Cold War America trained multiple rebel groups in order
to fight Soviet friendly government in Nicaragua.
The most famous
one was the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought US and Soviet Union very close to
a nuclear war. USA wanted to overthrow Soviet friendly Cuban communist
government. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), authorized by US President John
F. Kennedy, carried out multiple covert operations against Cuba and planned to
topple the government by 30th November 1961. The project was named
‘Operation Mongoose’.
In response,
Soviet planned to install several nuclear capable missiles in Cuba to deter
America from the intervention. Soviet ships carrying the missiles were enroute
to Cuba. Once the news reached Whitehouse, America threatened to launch
full-blown war if missiles were installed in Cuba. Crisis deepened to a
critical level and finally secret negotiations happened between the two
parties. Finally, the Soviet ships turned back and America agreed to remove the
missiles it had installed in Turkey targeting Soviet. A threat of war, possibly
a nuclear war, was avoided.
Now, we need to
ponder if America does not allow any adversary to build up military bases near
its shore and ready to start wars, why would any other nation be expected to
allow it? In the case of Ukraine, if it becomes part of NATO, American missiles
will be right beside the Russian border.
What was Putin’s
demand before start of the war? Firstly, a legal commitment that Ukraine will
not be part of NATO. Secondly, NATO to withdraw forces from Russian borders to
where they were stationed in 1997, before the eastward expansion. Were the
negotiations so difficult? It could avert a war and the humanitarian crisis
that we are seeing today.
New York Times
reported on 2nd February that “basic message to Moscow was American
and NATO resolve not to bow to Russian demands”. If Russian action today is
unjustified and act of aggression, isn’t refusal to achieve a diplomatic
solution an act of incitement too?
Wolfowitz Doctrine
It is an unofficial
name given to America’s defense planning guidance published in 1992 by US Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz. Later it was incorporated into foreign
policy principles of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush.
It was officially called ‘Bush Doctrine’.
It makes clear
announcement that after dissolution of Soviet Union, America must “prevent the
re-emergence of a new rival” and ensure that it remains the only superpower.
Both the doctrines advised to use unilateralism and use of preemptive war to
suppress rise of any other nations. It is very unequivocal in this regard, “Finally,
we must maintain mechanisms, in concert with our allies, to deter potential
aggressors from aspiring to a larger regional or global role”.
The doctrine also
mentions the risk of having a resurgent Russia. It states “Russia will remain
the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with
the capability of destroying the United States”.
We might be
surprised to see such audacious and inflammatory ideas in official documents of
a country. The idea is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of other nations.
But if we go by the examples that America has set, especially post-WW2, it is
not that surprising. It has been involved in direct wars or in secret missions
to topple governments almost all the time in one corner of the globe or
another. As per a report by Al Jazeera, USA has established over 750 military bases
in 80 countries. Over 173,000 US troops are deployed to different countries.
Is this not naked aggression and incitement to conflict? Possibly, instead of containing Russia, if America tried to cooperate with it at an equal level, Ukraine situation may not have snowballed into today’s crisis.
NATO Expansion
Before the
dissolution of Soviet Union in December 1991, Russia was promised that NATO
will not expand eastward. NATO started with 12 member countries in 1949 and had
already grown into 16 countries before 1990.
When Germany
Unification was on the table, US Secretary of State, James Baker met Soviet
President, Mikhail Gorbachev on 9th February 1990. There it was
agreed that NATO juggernaut will not move to the east beyond West Germany where
NATO was already present.
“We understand
that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well, it
is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in
Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction
will spread in an eastern direction”, James Baker told Gorbachev.
Current Russian
President Vladimir Putin has referred to this conversation multiple times recently
during his speech. Though American argument, at present, counters it by saying that
the commitment was made in terms of not deploying NATO troops in East Germany only
and no commitment was given that NATO would not expand to other countries.
In another
instance, on 17th May 1990, NATO general Secretary, Manfred Woerner
made a speech “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond
the territory of the federal Republic (West Germany) gives the Soviet Union
firm security guarantees”.
Would it be really
wrong, if Russia now asks the West to keep this promise, asks for this security
guarantee? Did America and NATO keep this promise? Absolutely not! Post-Cold
war, NATO expanded 5 times and kept on coming closer to the Russian border.
Count of member countries increased from 16 in 1990 to 30 at present. Three
more (Ukraine, Georgia, Bosnia & Herzegovina) are in various stages of
membership process.
 |
| European NATO Countries (in Blue) as on 2022 |
Russia protested multiple times. President Boris Yeltsin said in 1997, “We believe that eastward expansion of NATO is a mistake and a serious one at that”. In 2008, Vladimir Putin objected vehemently, “appearance of a powerful military bloc on Russia’s border would be taken as a direct threat”
Not only Russia
protested this expansion, many Western experts warned America. “Beginning of a
new Cold War. It is a strategic mistake”, said American diplomat and historian
George F. Kennan. American secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates warned in 2008
when NATO planned to include Ukraine and Georgia in the alliance. “Trying to
bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching. This move was a
case of recklessly ignoring what Russians considered their own vital national
interests”, said Mr. Gates.
NATO expansion
only means further expansion of American military bases in even more countries
and a threat to others who are not a part of this group. Because, the United
States of America is the primary security provider of this alliance. In 2021,
USA spent 811 billion dollars in defense. Whereas rest of the 29 countries
together in NATO spent 363 billion dollars. It is another way of conforming to
the Wolfowitz Doctrine of maintaining American supremacy.
Where Do We Stand?
India has very
rightly taken the neutral step. It is not just about our dependence on Russian
arms export and its maintenance. It is even more than our decades long strategic
partnership with Russia where they helped us numerous times when we needed it
badly. We cannot forget Russia’s support with Kashmir issue, Goa liberation,
India-Pakistan war during 1971, India’s nuclear test in 1998 or more recent
event of Article 370 revocation. America and the West in general took a very
different stand almost all the time. We need to remain neutral for even a bigger
reason.
American foreign policy of unilateralism and refusal to allow a multi-polar world will only increase its conflict with rising China. India falling into the American lobby will put us in direct conflict with China. Whereas Russia being a close friend of both India and China, may help diffuse Indo-China tensions. Why should we fight somebody else’s battle?
There is a video on this topic. Readers are encouraged to watch it as well.
