Fernando Alcoforado*
This article aims to analyze the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, point out its causes and consequences from a geopolitical point of view and the risks it represents for the outbreak of a war with global repercussions. There are several countries that can become outbreaks of wars in the world, highlighting, among them, Palestine, Israel, Iran and North Korea. Now, Ukraine is part of the list of countries that are the focus of a new world war. There are three aspects that need to be considered in the analysis of the conflict involving Russia and Ukraine now: 1) the common origin of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples; 2) the internal Ukrainian crisis; and, 3) the geopolitical question. Regarding the common origin of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, it is important to note that Kiev was the cradle of current Russian civilization because, in the 9th century, when the so-called Kievan State or Rus’ was formed, which amalgamated the Eastern Slavs, there was no difference between Russians (current Russians), Little Russians (current Ukrainians) and White Russians (current Belarusians) who formed a single people (See the book by Angelo Segrillo under the title Os Russos, published by Editora Contexto, São Paulo, 2010).
According to the late Brazilian diplomat and historian Moniz Bandeira, “until the twelfth century, the so-called Kievan Rus’ was a confederation of East Slavic tribes, virtually the greatest power in Europe, covering present-day Belarus and part of Russia. In 1795, the old Kievan Rus’s, was divided to the west of the Dnieper River, that ends in the Black Sea. Russia annexed most of the region, the entire Kanate of Crimea, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, under the Habsburg dynasty, dominated the other part, including Galitzia (Halychyna), in Central Europe, until 1918”. After the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Ukraine was constituted as a national state and, in 1922, it joined Belarus and Transcaucasia, in the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (See the article by Marco Aurélio Weissheimer published by Carta Capital under the title Moniz Bandeira points out alliance between western NGOs and neo-Nazis in Ukraine available on the website <http://pcb.org.br/fdr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=584:moniz-bandeira-aponta-alianca-entre-ongs-ocidentais-e-neonazistas-na-ucrania&catid=5:entrevistas-com-a-historia>.
The former Soviet Union of which Ukraine was a part industrialized through structural integration involving all its republics, with the aim of ensuring greater economic stability. When the Soviet Union fell in 1989, the countries of Eastern Europe were very interdependent, a fact that continues today in many aspects. Ukraine is currently commercially and economically dependent on Russia, mainly because it supplies it with natural gas, the country’s primary energy source, and Russia is the main buyer of numerous raw materials produced by the Ukrainian economy. Furthermore, in eastern Ukraine – where Russian is still spoken – many companies rely on sales to Russia. Ukraine, traditionally called “little Russia”, cannot detach itself from Russia, on which it depends a lot, especially for its gas supply. In turn, Russia has its gas pipelines that supply Europe through Ukraine. Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, allowing NATO to advance to Russia’s borders, would evidently tend to disrupt the entire geopolitical balance of Eurasia, a vast land and river region, to the Middle East that makes possible communications from the Black Sea and from important energy zones (gas and oil) with the Mediterranean Sea.
The political crisis in Ukraine that led to the 2014 overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is the result of political instability that has marked the region for several years. When the European Union proposed to Ukraine to sign a free trade treaty Russia, on the other hand, offered a better economic deal and, according to some versions not officially confirmed, if the Ukrainian government did not accept it, threatened to cut off the supply of natural gas and the purchase of Ukrainian products, in addition to imposing customs restrictions. This episode further exacerbated the differences between the two main Ukrainian political groups: the pro-Western and the pro-Russia. The decision of the government of Viktor Yanukovych not to sign the free trade treaty with the European Union but with Russia was the trigger that gave rise to the violent demonstrations that led to his deposition from power.
After the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a new pro-European Union and anti-Russian government was created, which further intensified separatist tensions in the Russian-majority Crimean peninsula, leading to a military escalation with action of the Russian government in the region. At this time, Crimea held a referendum that approved its incorporation into Russia, after which the government of Vladimir Putin occupied the territory, despite the disapproval of Western countries, such as the European Union and the United States. In May 2014, Petro Poroshenko was elected president of Ukraine and a month later he signed the agreement with the European Union that was the pivot of the entire crisis. The signing came amid clashes in the east of the country, stage of a pro-Russia separatist movement and threats and criticism from the Russian government.
Figure 1 – Map of Russia and Ukraine and their conflict areas
Source: https://mapamundi.org.br/2021/crimeia-entre-a-ucrania-e-a-russia/
After the incorporation of Crimea into Russia, regions of eastern Ukraine, with a Russian majority, began to suffer from separatist tensions. Pro-Russian militants seized public buildings in the city of Donetsk and proclaimed it a “sovereign republic”, setting a referendum on national sovereignty for May 11, 2014. The move was not recognized by the government of Ukraine or the United States and countries of the European Union. The referendum was even held and independence was approved by 89% of the votes. With the new tension in the region, Russia urged Ukraine to give up all sorts of military preparations to stop pro-Russian protests in eastern Ukrainian regions, as they could lead to civil war. The government of Ukraine, however, started an anti-terrorist operation in the region, to fight the separatists, with thousands of deaths on both sides. Russia even mobilized troops on the border that was condemned by the Ukrainian government and the West. Some of the troops were later withdrawn, but tension remained in the region.
On February 11 and 12, 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande signed a ceasefire agreement and the creation of a demilitarized zone. According to the agreement signed, the withdrawal of heavy artillery with a view to creating a disarmament zone of up to 140 kilometers was due to start on February 16, 2015. Two days after the ceasefire agreed between European leaders came into force, conflicts between the Ukrainian army and separatist forces were recorded in Debaltseve, a city strategically positioned between Donetsk and Lugansk, in eastern Ukraine. Since the truce took effect, at least five Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and nine wounded in clashes in Debaltseve and Mariupol, a port city coveted by the rebels. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were surrounded by rebel forces in Debaltseve.
At the moment 100,000 Russian troops are stationed on the border with Ukraine. The expectation of the US government, more precisely the Pentagon and the White House, is that 175,000 Russian men should be on the border with Ukraine by the end of January. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, there is a much more trained and armed army than the one that saw Crimea being annexed by Russia in 2014. The Ukrainian army is the third largest army in Europe, behind only the Russian and French. Armaments were acquired by Ukraine from the United States and several European Union countries. Even so, Ukraine is considered to lack the military capability to repel a Russian invasion. However, it is hoped that the Ukrainians will succeed in making the military conflict as long as possible (which would be, humanitarianly, tragic). The tendency would be that, as the Russians advanced, the United States and other European countries would supply the Ukrainians with more weapons and equipment capable of resisting, but not for Ukraine to win the war.
If the current conflict ends up in a war between Russia and Ukraine, not only the Ukrainians will be harmed, but also Russia, which may have its natural gas and oil exports to Europe compromised since the gas pipelines that supply this region pass through the Ukraine (Figure 2). Europe will also be harmed because it could have the cessation of Russian supplies of oil and natural gas. It is important to highlight the fact that gas and oil exports to Europe finance about half of the entire Russian federal annual budget. Europe consumes 70% of the oil and 65% of the natural gas exported by Russia. Russia supplies about a third of the natural gas and crude oil imported by the European Union. Europe has Russia as the main supplier of natural gas with around 44.38 trillion cubic meters. Several countries in Europe depend on Russian oil and natural gas. Countries like Germany and England are increasingly dependent on Russia for their fuel supply. Countries like Slovakia and Bulgaria depend 100% on Russia for their fuel supply.
The causes of the crisis in Ukraine are mainly geopolitical and strategic. What is at stake is not, in fact, Ukraine’s accession to the European Union and NATO- North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Western military alliance that was formed in 1949 to face the Soviet Union during the Cold War). Ukraine can only lose from the conflict. Many of their industries will shut down or be taken over by European multinationals and their small farmers will be ruined. However, what the United States intends through Ukraine’s accession to NATO and its incorporation into the European Union, is, above all, to enable NATO forces to be stationed on the Russian border. The most likely future scenario for the outcome of the political crisis in Ukraine is the division of the country, with Crimea already incorporated into Russia and the transformation of eastern, central-eastern and southern Ukraine into an autonomous region of the Kiev government if it is maintained the European Union’s agreement with Ukraine or its annexation to Russia willtakes place if NATO is present in Ukraine. The civil war that has already started in Ukraine could turn into a military conflict involving NATO and Russian forces with unpredictable consequences.
Figure 2 – Russian gas pipelines that supply Europe with natural gas
Source: https://www.galizalivre.com/2022/01/24/a-crise-energetica-a-europa-e-a-reviravolta-russa/
It can be said that Ukraine has become an important piece in the international political chess because, on the one hand, the United States and its allies in the European Union aim to extend the siege of Russia that began after the end of the Soviet Union in 1989 when several countries allied to it, such as Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania joined NATO. Former socialist countries allied to the Soviet Union, such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic joined the European Union. Countries such as Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia and Albania are awaiting approval to join the European Union (See Figure 2). The siege of Russia would be completed with the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO and the European Union, as desired by the United States and its internal Ukrainian allies.
Faced with this fact, Russia’s military strategy is to avoid at all costs the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO and the European Union. The expansion of NATO towards the Russian borders is the main external danger to the country. NATO’s expansion movement began with the end of the Soviet Union starting at the Baltic Sea, crossing Central Europe, Ukraine and Belarus, passing through the intervention in the Balkans (ex-Yugoslavia) and reaching Central Asia and Pakistan, expanding NATO’s borders. At the end of the 1990s, the geopolitical distribution of the new US military bases leaves no doubt about the existence of a new “sanitary belt”, separating Germany from Russia and Russia from China. The arrival of Vladimir Putin to power in Russia would radically change this geopolitical scenario, until then very unfavorable for the Russians. Vladimir Putin’s coming to power in Russia in 2000 marked the beginning of Russia’s geopolitical recovery, whose position had been greatly weakened during the Yeltsin government in the 1990s. Putin represents the rise to power of a broad and solid coalition of interests economic and political groups that united on the need to recompose the minimum bases of operation of a modern capitalist state that would overcome the wild and predatory phase of “primitive accumulation” in the Russian Federation with Yeltsin in power. The geopolitical recovery of Russia was made possible thanks to Putin’s affirmation of a nationalist project for the recovery of the Russian state.
It was from the year 2000 that Russia decided to develop a strategic partnership with China. Russia considered that China could help it resist US geopolitical ambitions in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus or Central Asia. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was created in 2001 to establish an alliance between Russia and China in military terms and in the fight against terrorism, religious fundamentalism and separatism in the Asia region. The SCO is a political and military cooperation organization that explicitly sets out to be a counterweight to the United States and NATO’s military forces. The two countries generally defend converging positions at the UN and other international forums, such as the G20, for example.
Ukraine and the other countries that are the focus of the outbreak of a new world war place on the order of the day the need for humanity to equip itself, as urgently as possible, with the instruments necessary for the construction of a world of peace. Throughout human history there have been three attempts to structure instruments aimed at building a world of peace. The first attempt took place in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia that put an end to the Thirty Years´ War (1618 – 1648) that marked the 17th century as one of the bloodiest conflicts in European history with the aim of establishing peace and a new world order. The three main actors of the Thirty Years’ War, Holy German Empire, France and Sweden, signed the Peace of Westphalia which defined that, from that moment on, there would be an international balance of powers, ensuring the absence of hegemonic power. Another change imposed by the treaty was the end of empires or dynasties and the birth of the Modern State. The most important principles of the Peace of Westphalia were the following: 1) Nation States would be sovereign (internal superiority and external insubmission); 2) non-interference in the internal affairs of other Nation States; 3) Nation States are equal in rights and obligations ; and, 4) Pacta Sunt Servanda (respect for international commitments). There were advances with the Treaty of Westphalia, but its principles were not respected above all by the great powers and it did not prevent new wars from breaking out in the world, such as World War I from 1914 to 1918.
The second attempt to structure instruments aimed at building a world of peace took place with the creation of the League of Nations on January 10, 1920 in the rubble of the 1st World War. The League of Nations was created as part of the Treaty of Versailles, which marked the end of World War I. The creation of this new intergovernmental organization was inspired by US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points statement – describing his proposals for a post-war peace settlement – which he presented to the US Congress in January 1918. The idea of a “society of nations,” however, is much older. It dates back to international conferences in the second half of the 19th century. It was during the Hague Peace Conferences, in 1899 and 1907, that the decisive shift from the idea of the Concert of Nations took place – orchestrated by the main European powers – to a truly inclusive multilateralism. The League of Nations emerged from World War I with the firm determination that such a tragedy should never again be allowed to happen. However, the lack of will on the part of the great powers made the League of Nations unable to effectively prevent the territorial aggressions of Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The start of a devastating 2nd World War saw the dream of the League of Nations be completely destroyed until the birth of the UN on October 24, 1945.
The third attempt to structure instruments aimed at building a world of peace took place with the creation of the UN (United Nations) which was founded after the 2nd World War and has been inoperative throughout its history. The UN or simply the United Nations, was created on October 24, 1945 to promote international cooperation with the intention of preventing another world war. The organization is funded with voluntary contributions from member countries. Its objectives include maintaining world peace and security, promoting human rights, aiding economic development and social progress, protecting the environment and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disasters and armed conflict. Its mission to promote peace was compromised in its first decades of existence, due to the great powers (the United States and the Soviet Union) during the Cold War and their respective allies. The number of members grew significantly after the great process of decolonization in the 1960s and its budget for social and economic development programs far exceeded its spending on peacekeeping. The UN has been a failure to build a world of peace.
The failure to build world peace with the Treaty of Westphalia, the League of Nations and the UN demonstrate the urgency of restructuring the UN to exercise effective governance of the international system that makes it possible to mediate international conflicts and ensure world peace. The world governance to be exercised by the UN whose General Assembly would be transformed into a World Parliament would aim to defend the general interests of the planet, ensure that each national state respects the sovereignty of other national states and seek to prevent the spread of global systemic risks. . The UN would avoid the empire of just one as it has happened throughout the history of humanity and the anarchy of all countries as it is currently happening. With world governance, it will be possible to fight against war and end the bloodbath that has characterized the history of humanity throughout history. War monuments must be replaced by Peace monuments after the constitution of a world government. To be democratic, the world government must be representative of all the peoples of the world. Humanity’s survival will depend on the ability to conclude a Planetary Social Contract representing the will of the majority of the planet’s population.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 82, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is author of the books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018), Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019) and A humanidade ameaçada e as estratégias para sua sobrevivência (Editora Dialética, São Paulo, 2021) .
Site Title 