Thursday | 16 January 2025 | Reg No- 06
বাংলা
   
Thursday | 16 January 2025 | Epaper

Ukraine is scapegoat in NATO-Russia rivalries

Published : Tuesday, 2 January, 2024 at 12:00 AM  Count : 447
Rajeev Ahmed
The post-Cold War era ushered in a new geopolitical paradigm, marked by shifting alliances and evolving power structures. Central to this transformation has been the relationship between NATO and Russia, a complex interplay of strategic interests and historical apprehensions. At the heart of this geopolitical drama lies Eastern Europe, a region once cloaked in the shadow of the Iron Curtain, now standing at the crossroads of Western liberal aspirations and Russian strategic interests. This article delves into the labyrinth of NATOs eastward expansion, the resurgence of nationalist ideologies in Eastern Europe, and the ensuing war in Ukraine, a geopolitical hotspot that has become the fulcrum of a larger contest for regional dominance.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left a vacuum in Eastern Europe, swiftly filled by the expanding influence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This expansion, often viewed as a strategic manoeuvre by the West, was not met without reservation. Russia, emerging from the ashes of the Soviet empire, viewed NATOs eastward movement with increasing apprehension, perceiving it as a direct challenge to its sphere of influence and a breach of verbal assurances purportedly given at the end of the Cold War.

This period was marked by a complex chemistry of assurance and aggression, with NATO attempting to present itself as a benign entity focused on promoting democracy and stability, while Russia increasingly saw it as a hegemonic tool of Western power. The accession of former Warsaw Pact countries and Baltic states to NATO only heightened these tensions, fundamentally altering the security landscape of Europe.

The strategic rationale for NATOs enlargement was rooted in both idealism and realpolitik. Proponents argued that expanding NATO would consolidate a Europe "whole and free," ensuring stability and democracy in regions historically susceptible to authoritarianism. However, critics contended that this rationale failed largely when the war in the Balkans broke out in the late 1990s and the enlargement was considered a provocative move, encircling Russia and undermining its regional security interests. This dichotomy between Western aspirations for a hegemonic international order and Russias perception of encirclement set the stage for the geopolitical discord that would eventually manifest in the war in Ukraine.

The post-Cold War era witnessed a resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe, a phenomenon with deep historical roots and contemporary geopolitical implications. This rise was particularly pronounced in nations that had once been under Soviet influence, where a newfound sense of independence kindled nationalistic fervour. Among these, Ukraine emerged as a notable example, where ultra-nationalism became intertwined with a strong anti-Russian sentiment. Through the nurturing of extreme nationalist beliefs among some Ukrainian citizens, aided by Western geopolitical strategies, it has become apparent to the world that a significant number of people in Ukraine have turned into adherents of neo-Nazism.

Programmes and policies often masquerading as strengthening democratic institutions and promoting Western values inadvertently fuelled ultra-nationalist movements in Ukraine and beyond. These movements, as devised, began to regard Russia with increasing suspicion and animosity and as a threat to their sovereignty and so-called democratic aspirations.

The Maidan Revolution of 2014, a pivotal moment in Ukraines history, brought these undercurrents to the forefront. The ousting of a pro-Russian government and the subsequent takeover of Crimea by Russia in 2014 exacerbated tensions, casting Ukraine as a battleground between US-led Western liberal hegemonic aspirations and Russian existential strategic interests.

This complex drapery of ultra-nationalism, underpinned by historical grievances and geopolitical manoeuvring, set the stage for Ukraines increasingly confrontational stance towards Russia. It was not just a spontaneous outburst of ultra-nationalist sentiment; rather, it was the gradual culmination of years of ideological transformation, heavily influenced by western geopolitical forces.

The war in Ukraine thus became a focal point of a larger geopolitical struggle, a manifestation of the deep-seated rivalry between Russia and the West. For Russia, maintaining influence over Ukraine was seen as crucial for its strategic security and as a bulwark against NATOs eastward expansion. For the West, supporting Ukraine became synonymous with defending so-called democratic values and maintaining an international order in Europe against Russia.

The US-led NATOs response to the crisis is multilayered, involving increased military presence in Eastern Europe, economic sanctions against Russia, and political support for Ukraine. These actions, while reinforcing NATOs commitment to its member states and its stance on Ukrainian sovereignty, further justified Russias narrative of encirclement and aggression by the West. Russia, undeterred by sanctions and international condemnation, has been continuing to assert its influence in Ukraine, viewing the country as a critical buffer zone against what it perceives as NATOs eastward expansion. The Kremlins actions in Ukraine are also part of a broader strategy to reassert its influence in the post-Soviet space and to challenge the Western-led international order that pushes Russia into oblivion.

Despite initial challenges, the Russian economy displayed resilience, adapting to the new reality of economic detachment from the West. This adaptation was facilitated in part by redirecting trade and investment towards non-Western countries, especially in Asia and Africa. Countries like China and India have played a critical role in this regard, providing Russia with alternative markets and diplomatic support. This shift has not only helped Russia mitigate the impact of Western sanctions but has also reflected a broader realignment in global geopolitics, with Russia increasingly looking eastward for economic and strategic partnerships.

Furthermore, the sanctions have had unintended consequences for the global economy, particularly in terms of energy prices and supply chains. Europes dependence on Russian gas has made the implementation of sanctions a complex and somewhat contradictory process, exposing vulnerabilities in European energy policy and prompting a renewed focus on energy diversification and security.

As we venture into 2024, the conflict in Ukraine shows no immediate signs of resolution. The continuous influx of Western support in the form of funds and weaponry to Ukraine, juxtaposed against Russias steadfast commitment backed by its formidable economy and the support of significant Asian players, suggests a protracted stalemate. The dynamics of the conflict and its global implications hinge on several pivotal factors.

The upcoming US elections could mark a turning point in American foreign policy, potentially influencing the level of support provided to Ukraine. Growing concerns among American policymakers regarding the sustainability of funding and the broader strategic implications of the conflict might lead to a reassessment of the USs role in the region.

Simultaneously, global attention is already shifting as other international crises, such as the ongoing conflict in Gaza, demand immediate attention. This shift may lead to a dilution of the collective focus of the west on Ukraine, affecting the international response and the resources allocated to the conflict.

The war in Ukraine is more than a regional conflict; it is a microcosm of the shifting power dynamics in a multipolar world. The resolution of the conflict, or lack thereof, will not only shape the future of Ukraine but also have far-reaching implications for the US-led international order.

It is likely that global empathy towards the innocent victims of war might diminish, particularly if no event more severe than the Gaza genocide occurs. The lives of civilians in warzones are currently and will continue to be disregarded and exploited as human shields, while certain other events will be highlighted according to Western strategic interests. However, if a catastrophic event, such as a nuclear explosion, were to happen, it could dramatically shift global perception towards a more unified understanding of human existence and the interconnected nature of our world. Driven by their ruthless geopolitical aspirations and self-centred national interests, the dominant Western powers have brought humanity to a point where, regrettably, our common empathy and the collective human spirit that binds us together often only awaken in response to extreme instances of human suffering. The world has become comfortably numb.

The writer is Geopolitical Analyst, Strategic Thinker and Editor at geopolits.com



LATEST NEWS
MOST READ
Also read
This is right time to dismantle RAB
Beware of fireworks on the eve of new year 
Peace in Myanmar, region depends on lasting solution to Rohingya issue
What to do for physical and mental health 
Goodbye 2024: A year marked by new escalated conflicts
Accountability is a must-but how?
Comrade Moni Singh: A legend of sacrifice in politics
A better tomorrow with the awakening of 2024
Editor : Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury
Published by the Editor on behalf of the Observer Ltd. from Globe Printers, 24/A, New Eskaton Road, Ramna, Dhaka.
Editorial, News and Commercial Offices : Aziz Bhaban (2nd floor), 93, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka-1000.
Phone: PABX- 41053001-06; Online: 41053014; Advertisement: 41053012.
E-mail: district@dailyobserverbd.com, news©dailyobserverbd.com, advertisement©dailyobserverbd.com, For Online Edition: mailobserverbd©gmail.com
🔝
close