This question was not only asked by a recent “Big Read” in the Financial Times, but it is asked everywhere around the globe, and especially by Ukrainians. “The Russian leader’s intentions in Ukraine remain a mystery. Some governments speculate he wants to use military pressure to halt NATO’s expansion. Others fear he is planning an invasion for real this time” is the ambivalent answer of the Financial Times. In reality, we do not know more. But the important question is how to react. And that again depends on how to answer the question about Putin’s intentions.
Ukrainian innocence of President Putin
At the recent meeting of the European Council for Foreign Relations I posed a question to an outspoken Ukrainian security expert who was strongly criticizing Russian aggression towards Ukraine. She was clear in her answer: “Russia is always denying being involved in the Ukrainian crisis. It would be absurd to intervene directly. Putin would lose his argument to be innocent concerning developments in Eastern Ukraine.” This is convincing argumentation.
Nevertheless, it is disturbing that Putin speaks – absurdly – about a genocide committed or at least prepared by the Ukrainians in the Eastern part of their country. The military build-up in the neighborhood of Ukraine followed a peculiar article published some months ago, in which Putin underlined the close relationship between the Ukrainian and Russian people and argued that “the true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia”. He promised to fight those forces, which would try to bring Ukraine to an anti-Russian course. Anyway, this is a very strange interpretation of sovereignty. Could the Ukrainians argue that Russia must not act against Ukraine, because true Russian “sovereignty is only possible in partnership” with Ukraine?
If Russia really wants to intervene directly it will be difficult to prevent it. All sanctions will hurt Russia, but also most of the European countries. It is not possible to define already now who would suffer more because of the damages done to the different economies. The only effective help for Ukraine would be military support to the Ukrainian army. But nobody knows where that would lead to.
So, let us hope that Putin wants to keep his “innocence” and intends to force the West, especially NATO, to agree with Russia’s demand to stop any additional NATO enlargement. This well-known demand is a big challenge for NATO. It was and is a clear Western position that each country must be free to decide if and when it would join NATO or any other alliance. Putin’s demand to issue a legally binding security guarantee that NATO will not cross Russia’s red line and would stop its eastward expansion cannot be met and accepted.
Start of a new dialogue
The two presidents, Putin and Biden agreed in a recent video conference to start serious talks about the future relationship between NATO and Russia. Obviously, this creates tensions inside NATO. Especially the Baltic and East European countries are skeptic about such talks. They fear that agreements between the West, especially the US and Russia, will be concluded over their heads. In particular, they fear that such talks would weaken their security and dilute Article 5 of the Washington Treaty which obliges NATO to defend all members against any attacker.
The problem is that after the breakup of the Soviet Union an agreement to design and build up a common European Security System would have made sense. This chance was not seized in the early nineties. Instead, the West was acting according to the principle ‘the winner takes it all’. In addition, most if not all countries hitherto dominated by the Soviet Union, were not ready to agree to such a common security system. They wanted a clear cut with their past and a new beginning without Russia representing the Soviet legacy.
With Russia today is in a stronger position and, having created or at least promoted many crises around its border with Western-oriented countries, it is much more difficult to come to a consensus about European security. Putin did not develop constructive ideas about such a system which would bring more security to Europe. He did not create a sphere of trust.
Already when his short-time presidential “proxy” Dmitry Medvedev proposed in 2008 a “New European Security Architecture” it was not clear what the Russian side wanted. Unfortunately, Western leaders were not interested in starting serious talks, as they suspected that Russia just wanted to weaken NATO and undermine the OSCE. Western politicians did not see any necessity to include Russia in a comprehensive security architecture.
On the contrary, NATO expansion should not be ended. The US wanted to clear the way for Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and only European resistance at the Bucharest summit in 2008 prevented such a direct step. But the summit welcomed “Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO …. and agreed… that these countries will become members of NATO”. The principle opening of NATO for Ukraine and Georgia on the one side and the outright rejection of Medvedev’s ideas about a European Security System on the other side – in the same year 2008 – was a turning point for Russia and especially for President Putin.
Missed chances but new opportunities
President Putin became stronger, and the West was and is confronted with new challenges. The US is strongly engaged to target China as main adversary. China is also challenging the European Union. But for the EU the main security threat remains the Ukrainian issue. The European Union is missing one strong NATO country – the United Kingdom – and has a very weak defense dimension. These characteristics and developments make it difficult to have serious talks with Russia from a position of strength. Nevertheless, it would be wise to start talks without illusions and while carefully observing any move by the Russian military.
Any talks with Russia will not lead to an agreement in short-term, the cleavages are too wide. But these talks could prevent the present conflict from becoming hot. Anyway, European security is in a very fragile situation and talks could reduce the immediate dangers and prepare a course towards a new security structure for Europe. It is necessary for the European Union and NATO to find an agreement on a united strategy to prevent Russia from dividing the West. Both should develop new ideas how European security could be organized with a Russia which certainly will not become part of any Western alliance. This chance – whenever it existed - has been missed. But it should be possible to realize a new co-existence in Europe and a targeted cooperation on vital issues like security and climate change.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.