The Ukrainian dilemma

The geopolitical board has shifted in Europe and a brand new hand has been dealt. But do contemporary Western allies have the political wisdom to defuse the situation ?

Before you continue reading this short essay, I feel it necessary to clarify my goal behind the exploration and analysis you’re about to discover.

First of all, as much as I am moved like the next person by the horrors of the war witnessed since February 24th 2022 in Ukraine, my intention writing this piece was to understand the underlying variables at play in this part of the world. To look at the broader picture without being distracted by the deaths, the destruction, the humanitarian crisis, and the like.

Secondly, by no means was I trying to justify any of the actions perpetrated by the Putin regime. Let me be clear: the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is terrible and should have ideally been avoided. But unfortunately, we cannot rewind the historical tape at this point and the world needs to adjust to this new reality.

Once the initial emotions have settled, reality kicks back with a vengeance and our leaders, especially those on the front lines in Europe, need to play this geopolitical chess game with care, and ideally with some political wisdom.

In short, as with most of my articles, I try to take some distance from the daily noise of the news cycle and the specifics of current events, in order to provide some historical perspective (with the humility it requires because everyone has partial information and knowledge of such immensely complicated issues).

Enjoy this edition of The Nomad Historian !

---

Photo by Karollyne Hubert on Unsplash

For a rare occurrence, I am stepping outside my zone of comfort in writing about a region of the world I am less familiar with but since its ramifications are felt even in my home country, I wanted to provide my humble perspective on the issue and shed light on angles that pass mostly under the radar.

As the title suggests, Western Europe and its allies are facing a dilemma they have not encountered for generations: a nuclear power decided to make a bold move in challenging the political and economic world order they all have become accustomed to navigate in.

So, are we heading towards total war or will this mark a turning point in which a new international framework will be negotiated ?

In the days and first weeks that followed the Russian army entering eastern Ukraine back in February 2022, many Western geopolitical analysts or foreign correspondents within the mainstream media have reacted utterly surprised by the events. As if such a military theater, on European soil, had become an impossible scenario in our highly interconnected world. Blinded by decades of relative peace in our hemisphere, nobody seemed to get their heads around this military action.

Putin’s aggression was mostly (if not only) depicted as an unjustified attack toward a sovereign state and Russians were thus perpetrating war crimes on the world stage. While these initial analysis were no doubt justified on some level, must I remind everyone the numerous examples of unjustified (by that I mean no green light from the UN for example) invasions by Western countries ?

From that point on, prefabricated outrage towards Russia was immediately put in motion. No time for discernement or nuance, no negotiation was possible. Economic sanctions were implemented with unprecedented speed and scale, large international corporations retreated from their Russian industrial and commercial footprint within weeks. The international banking system, notably with SWIFT, cut ties with Russia, and on and on it went.

The integrity of Ukraine must prevail and it must to win at all costs otherwise the West would show weakness (or so it seemed). A corrupted regime fifteen minutes ago, that faced its own low level civil strife between internal regions for years, G7 governments were now comfortable in transferring millions (if not billions) of dollars to support the Zelensky government.

But if we take a deep breath, what are the demands and recriminations of Russia exactly ? Could we have prevented such a war in the first place ? How is it different from the Crimea annexation in 2014 ? These questions have surely some merit, especially from where I stand, but in a world where political immediacy is of the essence, a definitive position had to be taken. Casting aside our obvious reaction to Russia’s military gamble, my initial reflex during such events is always to understand the bigger picture.

So is there more to this than just superficial outrage ?

Democracy index and the civilization variable

Without any debate inside our respective parliament, monetary and military aid were sent to Ukraine. The propaganda machines (and lets be honest) from both sides were activated. In the Western world, Vladimir Putin was immediately vilified and the Russian federation categorized almost like a rogue state.

But is it that simple ? When I hear G7 head’s of state so eagerly defend the democratic (sic) state of Ukraine, I feel uneasy at best or worried at worst. After all, it’s not as if the Ukrainian regime has been a shining light and an example in the select club of liberal democracies around the globe.

In most democracy index (see an example below), Ukraine is classified as an open anocracy, or an hybrid regime, meaning that it functions in a mode of government that is partly democratic and partly autocratic or dictatorial. Depending on the index you consult, some have Russia more dictatorial than Ukraine, other classify both countries similarly (or close) in the full democracy to autocracy scale. The exact evaluation of the regime is unimportant at this point. It is therefore laughable to see our Western leaders acting as if helping Zelensky’s regime was akin to defending Liberty with a capital “L”.

In any event, with the tendencies Western states exhibited during the covid ordeal, maybe our leaders are so disconnected from their population that they don’t have the same definition of a liberal democracy as their citizens anymore. Who knows ? Regardless of where we stand, the fact remains Ukraine is not a democracy in the traditional definition and we should engage with them with necessary prudence and distance.

caption...

In addition, ever since the end of the Cold War, a fragile equilibrium between the more Christians Western nations and the orthodox old Eastern bloc has been maintained. As long as the liberal and more progressive Western nations stayed in their sphere of influence, relative peace could be secured. This political framework of a reordering of international relations following civilizational lines, as articulated by Samuel P. Huntington back in the 1990’s, has largely been vindicated since then. China, the Islamic world and Russia are prime examples of this new paradigm in the post Cold War era.

Forecasting some pre-requisites for this new world to function peacefully in the future, Huntington stated the following:

“ Russian acceptance of the expansion of the European Union and NATO to include the Western Christian states of Central and Eastern Europe, and Western commitment not to expand NATO further, unless Ukraine splits into two countries.”

In the prediction game for this part of the world, Huntington also wrote:

“… the situation between Ukraine and Russia is ripe for security competition between them. Great powers that share a long and unprotected border, like that between Russia and Ukraine, often lapse in to competition driven by security fears. They might overcome this dynamic and learn to live together in harmony, but it would be unusual if they do.”

Samuel P. Huntington, political scientist, 1996

This conflict should therefore not be a surprise for anyone. It has been boiling for decades at the junction of two civilizations. Huntington would say that the world bleeds near these cultural borders.

Territory, demography and resources

For all the focus put on Putin’s regime, the geopolitical strategy of Russia is partly predetermined by its geography, demography, economic strategy and military history. Even with an alternative leader, the events currently unfolding in the Donbass region and elsewhere in Ukraine might have still materialized.

Defending such a large country with deficient infrastructures and many weak spots exposes Russia to external attacks. Their history is filled with examples of such military invasion of the Russian territory. The French and Germans being prime examples. Thus, the political psyche of the Russian population has to be influenced by these tragic events of its history.

In his 2009 book The Next 100 years, geopolitical forecaster George Friedman warned us on the the challenges Russia faces in the decades to come. For example, on the consequences of its demography crisis, he writes:

“ Time is working against it. Russia’s problem will soon be its ability to field an army sufficient for its strategic needs. Internally, the number of Russians compared to other ethnic groups is declining, placing intense pressure on Russia to make a move sooner rather than later.”

If demography is destiny, Russia has the equivalent of an alarm clock to protect its long term security as a major player in the world.

Since a shortage of a readily available workforce has increasingly been an issue for them, Russia even had to gradually de-industrialized to some extent and shifted its strategy towards a resource based economy focused notably on the exports of oil and gas (an industry less labor intense than other sectors of the economy). Since then, the Russian regime has slowly gained traction and leverage with many European countries who became dependent on Russia to cover large portions of their energy needs.

For more on this issue, I recommend reading the perspective of geopolitical strategist and consultant, Peter Zeihan. See link below:

Zeihan on Geopolitics

Thanks to this strategy, Russia’s wealth has greatly increased over the last couple of decades giving them some flexibility and resources to its military. But in the end, they were never destined to fully integrate the “unipolar” world. Thinking otherwise was naive to say the least. As theorized by Huntington, the Orthodox civilization, once its confidence was regained, would defend and promote its culture once again (and so it did). That’s why it still feels insecure geopolitically speaking even though they came a long way since the early 1990’s. With NATO expansion coming closer and closer to its border, Russia has become ever more uneasy with its neighbors.

On this front, Friedman adds (remember this was written in 2009) :

“ In the next decade Russia will become increasingly wealthy (relative to its past, at least) but geographically insecure. It will therefore use some of its wealth to create a military force appropriate to protect its interests, buffer zones to protect it from the rest of the world. (…)

What Russia cannot tolerate are tight borders without buffer zones, and its neighbors united against it. This is why Russia’s future actions will appear to be aggressive but will actually be defensive.”

George Friedman, The Next 100 years, 2009

Even if these forecasts must not be taken as inevitable prophecies, when all the most important variables for Russia’s security future (demography, geography, civilizational fractures, balance of power, etc.) aligns towards an outcome like the one we just witnessed in 2022 , we cannot act like it’s such a big surprise. States, especially important players, will always defend their interests.

Would the United States be comfortable with a Chinese military presence in Canada or Mexico ? Of course not.

In the end, reality supersedes our emotions and we have to deal with the geopolitical hand dealt in front of us. Blinded by our historical fear of where a politics of appeasement could lead, Western allies are seemingly incapable of overcoming their current paradigm that would bring forth a much needed negotiation with the Putin regime. Like it or not, the unipolar moment the West enjoyed since the fall of the Soviet Union is now over and we will likely transition to a multipolar one.

My hope is that we will act accordingly to prevent the ultimate sacrifice nobody wishes to confront. Since a reordering of international relations seems unavoidable in the long run, a revised approach should guide our actions to end this conflict.

---

---