Both Ukraine and Russia agreed to talk without pre-conditions at the Belarus-Ukraine border. It's a positive development but if they happen soon, I believe they will go nowhere. And why? That is due to the reasons for Putin deciding to invade. Let me explain further.
There are 2 main views in the public arena about who are the real instigators but I think that it's pretty much the consensus that Ukraine joining NATO is the main reason for the conflict as Russia, in particular Putin's Russia, would never accept that. It's not as simple as not wanting NATO at its border, since NATO is already at the Baltic, it's more to do with Ukraine's geographical location. It's Russia opposition that has been delaying Ukraine's membership that, unlike many have been sharing, was not invited to join in 2008; they have expressed their desire to join since 1994 but in 2008, at the NATO Summit, many were expecting Ukraine to be accepted into NATO's Membership Action Plan but it didn't happen mainly because of Putin's objections. Nonetheless the intention is still there so best way is for Russia to replace current government and put a new one that shifts the focus back to Russia (as it was the case during Yanukovyc's presidency between 2010-14).
That is the main reason for the push for Kyiv. Capture (or eliminate) the government and set a new one.
But there is another big reason for the invasion, and the maps (first one is about the estimated invasion plans and the second one are the positions earlier today, 27th) corroborate that push in the South, with Russians trying to link with the Donbass at the Azov coast (not really on the first map of the expected plans but that is visible on the second), but also moving West in the direction of Odessa to reach Transnistria (Russian separatist region in Moldova). This is to make Ukraine a landlocked country without access to the sea. And the reason beyond that is Energy.
This brilliant video explains both reasons very well: Why Russia is Invading Ukraine
The video mentions other motives, at least the water resources and the impact of lack of water in Crimea, but I admit I focused on the two more detailed ones that to me also carry more weight.
My Belgian friend Paul also mentioned the agricultural aspect, since Ukraine was the main food provider to the whole USSR and I remember seeing, although I think not in this particular video, references to the impact this war will have in the cereal, but mostly wheat, production since Russia and Ukraine are major producers and exporters worldwide. Paul's interesting point of view, that deserves to be highlighted here even though I don't think it had any influence in Putin's decision, is that if water and agriculture are indeed justifications then this seems to be the first climate relate war. I wanted to write this here because it is a pertinent idea and this might become a reality soon, wars for natural resources motivated by the climate changes (although it was been talked and written in the past that future wars would be about access to water, that will become a highly disputed natural resource).
And to me those 2 main reasons are another confirmation that, as usual, there is not just one simple reason/explanation for these events, although we tend to simplify it in the public discussion and then get distracted in pointing the blame.
And also to me gives more weight to my previous opinion that even if NATO (that I believe should have ended some time ago and replaced in Europe with a sort of EU Armed Forces) was out of the picture, Putin would still do something due to Ukraine turning West and the excuse then would be having the EU at his border, with direct access to big energy reserves. Of course that is just my speculation, but I'm allowed to have one as well, considering how so many people are convinced of their versions of the "real reasons"...
But to go full circle and connect again with the talks: if Ukraine accepts a neutral position, Russia (Putin) might think first main objective was reached, but I think Russia doesn't want to reach an agreement without securing second main objective, so until the forces at the South are able to control all of the coast, they will stall the talks.
Of course there are several things that might force their hand, such as not making much progress in the South and having more and more external and internal pressure to stop the war. A neutral Ukraine might just be enough to save their face...
I end this by providing some context in case people wonder why I'm so invested in a conflict in an "distant" country:
Kyiv is 65km closer (going by car) to where I am, than my hometown back in Portugal. And there is fighting to the West of Kyiv, so in other words, I am closer to the war than I am to my parents and brother (and other family and close friends)!
No comments:
Post a Comment