--Dusan Gavrich (The Peacemaker)
Media coverage of the Ukraine situation leaves an impression that the invasion happened out of the blue. That Russian president Vladimir Putin suddenly decided to attack an innocent border country in an aggressive land grab.
Any message conveyed by a broad range of Western media should be cautiously considered--particularly when it concerns acts of war against members of the West. Not only is there surely to be a tribal bias in the messaging, but any student of war understands that large scale campaigns are rarely initiated on a whim. Instead, there is probably a history, often a long one, that over time drives political leaders to be believe that their hand has been forced, and that the use of military force is justified.
In the case of Ukraine and Russia, there is a long shared history. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the land that is modern day Ukraine was split between Poland and the Russian Empire. Post revolution, the Ukranian People's Republic emerged as an independent state in 1917 that subsequently became a founding member of the Soviet Union in 1922, with its name changing to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic. When the Soviet Union dissolved, the country regained its independence in 1991 as today's Ukraine.
A couple basic geographical features of Ukraine are worth noting. It shares a nearly 1500 mile border with Russia. It is also the second largest country by landmass in Europe (Russia is first).
Since it became an independent state, Ukraine's relationship with Russia has been a rocky one. Central to this conflict has been Russian concerns about the expansion of NATO. Russia has long viewed NATO as a threat to its sovereignty. Given the geopolitical features of Ukraine noted above, it is straightforward to grasp Russian fears about Ukraine being used as a NATO pawn.
In the early 2000s, political corruption in the Ukraine brought about the Orange Revolution. Partly backed by Western sources, including the US State Dept and Soro's Open Society Institute, the revolution resulted in the installation of pro-Western politicians in Ukraine's government. To counter, Russia began supporting Ukraine political movement that it liked.
The following few years were marked by a series of protests, revolutions, and contested elections in Ukraine, undoubtedly spiced by outside influence from both Russia and Western entities. In 2014, instability and revolution prompted Russia to occupy and, ultimately annex, land in southern Ukraine that became known as the Republic of Crimea. Although the annexation was claimed to be the choice of an autonomous, pro-Russian state, its legitimacy has been contested per United Nations resolution.
Post Crimea, tensions have continued to escalate. Eastern Ukraine provinces (those close to Russia) have been susceptible to violent uprisings between nationalists and separatists. Repeated calls by Putin for formal agreements that would keep Ukraine out of the NATO scheme brought not action. Over the past couple of years, Russia began to amass troop strength and conduct military drills along the Ukraine border.
The suppression of this history in current media coverage makes it easy to be suspicious of the dominant narrative. We'll connect past to present in an upcoming post.
No comments:
Post a Comment