Ukraine and Russia are at loggerheads. Russia has massed more than 130,000 troops on its border, as well as large vehicles and other weapons of war, capable of invading this country quickly.
Ukraine, although wishing to become a member of NATO for its future protection, is not part of it for the moment and the study leading to a possible membership is not advanced. Russia strongly opposes this, considering that such a decision would be a serious threat to its security.
On the contrary, NATO and the free world consider it a request that belongs only to the country concerned. She recalls that NATO is only a “defensive” military alliance. It does not want to attack any country and has not done so in its 70 years of existence, it claims. It exercises the right recognized by the United Nations of legitimate defense in the event of aggression against one of its members.
Unfortunately, there was one notable exception where the alliance intervened militarily: they carried out aerial bombardments in the former Yugoslavia during their civil war. This exception made Russia shudder, which fears new “offensive” interventions on their part.
But let us briefly summarize the evolution of NATO since the time of its creation. In 1950, it was made up of 11 countries. Time passed and contrary to what the former leader of the USSR, Nikita Khrushchev had predicted, it was not the West that collapsed in 1991 under its contradictions, but the USSR. Its satellite countries, feeling a great appetite for freedom and security, took advantage of this unexpected opportunity to join NATO.
This change of allegiance increased the number of NATO member countries from 11 to 30. Most of them also joined the European Economic Community (EEC). And so, quickly, the new NATO frontier reached Belarus and Ukraine, two countries bordering Russia.
This is what worries Vladimir Putin. The latter does not believe that such a military power on its borders will forever remain a defensive organization. NATO is so powerful that Russia fears the possible invasion of its own country, despite its nuclear arsenal.
No agreement seems possible between the two groups. We are currently witnessing a true dialogue of the deaf. And the tension rises. Is there a diplomatic solution to this explosive situation? In any case, it is certainly possible to solve some thorny problems.
First, let’s clarify the case of Crimea. This peninsula of the Black Sea is attached to Ukraine, to the north, by land, but only to the east with Russia, to the east, by a bridge. Beyond this bridge, the widening of the sea is such that it has been given a name, “the Sea of Azov”.
Crimea had been conquered by Russia a few centuries earlier and it wants to keep it as the apple of its eye, because, despite the gigantism of the Russian territory, this country effectively has no other access to ice-free waters 12 months per year.
Yet when he came to power in the USSR in the early 1960s, Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. This was probably more convenient because of his earthly connection. However, the latter did not write an implicit condition for this transfer, because he never imagined that the end of the USSR could occur. Today, it is quite certain that he would have the prudence to add, as an imperative condition, the cancellation of the transfer if Ukraine left the USSR. But he did not do it. And Ukraine, which has since become an independent country, has kept Crimea.
Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia, decided to correct this “error” by taking over manu militari this territory which he invaded in 2014. There were a few deaths, as any war generates, but in small numbers. No one, however, came to the aid of Ukraine.
The international community protested against this denial of modern legality, but it did so only on paper. They were sent a little money and military equipment but not a single soldier to restore what they all valued, international law.
Why? Because the whole world considers that in practice Crimea is Russian territory. Its population is predominantly Russian and its history for several centuries is Russian. His move from Russia to Ukraine is seen as a Nikita Khrushchev blunder…now corrected in Wild West fashion by Vladimir Putin. Also, despite modern rules, which believe that we cannot unilaterally undo this kind of transfer, no ally of Ukraine will concretely support its reconquest of Crimea. NATO will not interfere in this. And Ukraine is no match for winning a war against Russia.
What to do? In this world where diplomacy requires saving face, a simple solution would be for Ukraine to sell Crimea to Russia.
Why would Ukraine sell her? Because not only does it not have the power to change this state of affairs, and NATO will refuse its membership if this border dispute with Russia still exists.
Why would Russia buy it? Because it would restore the legality of this territorial possession. The worst arrangement is better than the best of wars. Finally, it would eliminate an unresolved dispute in the eyes of the United Nations.
At what price could such a sale be made? Faced with a probable disagreement, there has existed for more than a hundred years an international arbitration body, in The Hague in the Netherlands, specializing in this type of case. The two parties could give them the mandate to estimate this price and commit to respecting the court’s decision.
This kind of transactions has happened a few times in the modern history of mankind. Among these, let us mention the purchase of Louisiana from France by the United States in 1803, an immense territory which during the following century was transformed into 13 states out of the 50 that today form this country. The United States also acquired Alaska from Russia in 1867 north of Canada.
Now let’s move on to the next issue: the alleged rebellion in the eastern territories of Ukraine against their central government. It is provided in the United Nations Charter that territories attached to a country can declare themselves independent and ask to be detached from this country to become free.
Vladimir Putin claims that this is the case of territories in the east of Ukraine where there is a large population of Russian speakers. For its part, Ukraine claims that these supposed rebellions were fomented by Russia to justify a possible attack on their country.
This is a very good case that could be submitted to the same international arbitration tribunal mentioned above. Such a proposal would be hard to refuse from Russia. Ukraine, for its part, might find this pill hard to swallow, but at least the case would be examined objectively by an independent tribunal.
It is obviously necessary that the parties undertake, before the sentence, to accept the verdict. NATO, again, could make it a condition for studying Ukraine’s application for membership. Russia might be hesitant to submit to it, but pressure from the United Nations would probably be enough to force their hand.
Finally 3rd and last problem: the possible membership of Ukraine in NATO.
Russia opposes it for reasons unacceptable to the West. Russia, during the fall of the USSR, could have become a liberal democracy like the other countries of the Warsaw Pact and the question would not arise. Russia could then itself have become a member of NATO.
If this did not happen, not all the wrongs are attributable to Vladimir Putin. After the fall of the USSR, Russia seemed to have fallen into the hands of a corrupt elite who shared the spoils of the empire and profiteers from western countries, which included powerful Americans who were not not left out to serve themselves without scruples. This is what this autocrat claims to have attacked by exercising strict power to repress them. But this strict power is called “dictatorship”.
This does not preclude considering a compromise that would save face for both parties. Without giving in on the Russian request to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO forever, it would probably be possible to delay the acceptance of this request to calm things down.
However, certain conditions would apply: Russia would have to undertake to disarm the Ukrainian border and not to attack its territory. NATO, for its part, should also undertake not to attack Russia, a condition which it should accept without problem since this is clearly not its intention. And all of this would bring the tension down to a bearable level.
Obviously, these proposals leave out the important question of human rights in Russia. This is a regrettable, serious, unacceptable situation. But for the moment, there does not seem to be any positive development possible in the short term to eliminate this autocrat and all his cronies from political power.
However, these solutions will come up against a Vladimir Putin for whom only an unfavorable military balance of power would lead him to give up his real goal: to bring Ukraine back to the side of the autocratic countries.
The establishment of a liberal democracy on the Russian borders worries this dictator for life. He will do anything to destabilize the democratic government of Ukraine, including invading that country if he can do so without serious consequence, as he did in Crimea.
Diplomatic solutions, however reasonable they may be, will probably not be enough to prevent an irresponsible passage through warlike violence, despite the risks of slippage that it entails.
Robert Dutil, Former minister in the Bourassa and Charest governments, Quebec
Reference-www.tvanouvelles.ca