Vladimir Putin is a fascist tyrant. At least that’s what Prince Charles implied when he called Putin the second coming of Hitler. Unfortunately, the amped up rhetoric of politicians and public figures like Prince Charles ignores the role NATO has played in pushing Russia to react. Indeed, NATO has a significant degree of responsibility for the current standoff.
NATO, the EU and Ukraine have been playing ‘footsie’ with each other for at least a decade. NATO holds joint military operations in western Ukraine every year under the auspices of the Partnership for Peace. NATO also brought the Baltic states into the alliance in spite of post-Cold War promises not to expand into eastern Europe. Russia undeniably interprets NATO’s encroachment through expansion and partnerships as a threat.
If you look at the map of Russia below you’ll see why Russia perceives NATO/EU footsie with Ukraine as a threat. Ukraine and Kazakhstan create a geographical bottleneck in southern Russia. If NATO positioned troops and weapons systems in Ukraine, in the event of a conflict, they could march through the geographic bottleneck straight to the Kazakh border cutting Russia off from the Black and Caspian Sea.
The Black Sea, in particular the bases in Crimea, are of vital military and economic importance to the Russians. In the north their ports freeze in the winter. In the east their ports are thousands of miles away from the bulk of the population and their ships must sail some of the most politically contested waters in the world.
The loss of southern ports would be a catastrophe for the Russians. It would severely hinder Russia’s ability to influence global military and economic affairs. They’d have to circumnavigate Asia or Europe to get to the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. The Russians recognize as A.T. Mahan outlined in his 19th century book , The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783, those who control the sea control history.
Of course, none of the preceding is to suggest that Vladimir Putin is a pacifist. It’s not to suggest that he’s morally justified in his actions. It’s to suggest, however, that NATO shouldn’t be able to claim who, what, where, why is this happening? It’s very easy to understand why Russia feels they have a strategic imperative for action.
Personally, in spite of the rhetoric, I’d like to think Putin is a pragmatic man. In spite of some strong rhetoric about being able to take Kiev in two weeks and Russians in eastern Ukraine saying they’ll attack Poland next, Putin understands the costs of a broader conflict and occupying Ukraine.
I believe Putin’s intentions are limited. He wants to a) keep Ukraine in crisis to prevent them from building a stronger partnership with NATO and/or the EU or b) establish a puppet state in eastern Ukraine that would ensure access to the Black Sea and eastern Ukraine’s mines and factories. Whether what I’d like to think with respect to Putin’s ambitions reflect reality or not I suppose we’ll find out.
the Foreign Office 