The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a security
alliance between North America and Europe the goal of which was to protect and
preserve democratic freedom. The treaty was signed on 4th April,
1949, and it aimed at countering future aggression by the USSR (Wintour, 2022). The treaty established a balance of power in Europe,
and it promised all members collective security and by virtue of this provision,
member countries pool in their military resources and build their defence
capabilities. Thus, NATO was an alliance of liberal countries and an engine of
democracy promoting common values and interests and indirectly pushing back
communism. Perceiving NATO as a threat, the USSR entered into the Warsaw pact
in the year 1955. Warsaw pact and NATO shared a common goal, and that was that
if one member of the pact was attacked, other members would defend the
member(s) under attack. Thus, two instruments common in design and purposes
were pitted against each other (The North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
In 1989 the Berlin wall collapsed, and in 1991 with
the disintegration of the USSR and the demolition of the iron curtain, the onus
rested on Germany whether to align with NATO or join Russia through the Warsaw
pact. It was at this time that the US government, under the leadership of
George H.W. Bush made an offer to
Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and it suggested that if Germany became a
NATO member, NATO would not expand ‘even an inch eastward’ and no new members
would be admitted to NATO (Record
of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker, 1990). The offer was accepted by Russia, and the Warsaw
pact was called off, hoping that America would honour its promise. On the
contrary, the USA has since claimed that no such offer was extended to Russia.
Official American documents, however, speak otherwise (From
the One-on-One Conversation of M.S. Gorbachev with H. Kohl, 1990).
NATO has not ceased expansion, and it is open for
membership even today. In 1949 there were 12 founding members of NATO, but
since the fall of the USSR, it has rapidly expanded eastwards, and in 1999
Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were admitted into the alliance. In 2004
there was another wave of expansion, and seven central and eastern European
nations, erstwhile soviet republics, were incorporated in NATO. In 2009,
Albania and Croatia joined NATO. The latest additions are that of Montenegro
and Northern Macedonia in the year 2017-2020. Both Montenegro and Northern
Macedonia are situated very close to Russia. Induction of new members does not
stop here, and as of 2021, NATO has recognized Bosnia & Herzegovina,
Georgia and Ukraine as aspiring members (NATO, 2020). Recently, NATO
has been in talks with Finland, Serbia and Sweden for membership. This means
that many east European nations which used to be a part of the erstwhile Soviet
Union have acquired NATO membership and
this has happened despite Russia’s warnings and protests.
NATO and Russia: Relationship so far
The
relationship of Russia and NATO has seen its ups and downs through the course
of history. The beginning of the decade saw the establishment of NATO-Russia
Council (NRC). The NRC served as a platform of consultation for both parties to
discuss matters important for security and cooperation. It is owing to the NRC
that NATO and Russia have had stable relations for some time but it would not
be wrong to say that in spite of the diplomatic platforms, NATO and Russia have
been at loggerheads, and Russia has been quite vocal regarding the expansion of
NATO. In the year 2007, Russian President, while addressing the Munich
Conference, asked the ‘western partners’ against whom the expansion of NATO is
addressed?
Russia
is not alone when it voices its concerns against the expansionist policy of
NATO and the thought has echoed in America as well. On 27 June, 1997 American foreign
policy experts signed an open letter to American president Bill Clinton calling
America’s efforts to expand NATO ‘a policy error of historic proportions’ (McCgwire, 1998). The thought and
the warnings have only gotten stronger, and in the year 2008, William J Burns,
former USA ambassador to Russia wrote a letter to the State Department saying
that ‘the entry of Ukraine in the NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the
Russian elite’ the letter also stated that the ‘Ukraine’s entry in the NATO is
a direct challenge to Russian interests’(Suny, 2022). Time and again,
it has been reiterated that Russia’s protests have merit but seeing the
narrative being developed, it appears that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine
is the victim.
In
the prevailing circumstances, Ukraine has received the support of NATO, and
NATO has shown interest in adopting a diplomatic course to deescalate and end
the conflict. NATO agrees for a ‘meaningful dialogue’ with Russia and is open
to the idea of a NATO-Russia Council Meeting in the future. The practices of
NATO, however, dictate otherwise. Time and again Russia has protested against
the eastward expansion of NATO, citing security concerns; the latest
crystallization of this concern has been in the form of the Treaty between The
United States of America and the Russian Federation on security guarantees (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021). By the medium of
the treaty, Russia requested the United States of America to prevent the
‘eastward expansion of NATO and deny accession to the alliance to the States of
the former USSR’; Russia requested USA to not deploy armed forces of
international organizations and military coalitions in areas which could be
perceived as a threat to national security. Further, Russia also requested USA
not to deploy ground launched missiles which could attack target in the
national territory of the other party. The treaty was out rightly rejected and
called ‘unreasonable’ Thus, it appears that practices and claims of NATO don’t
align and it appreciates the diplomatic route only on paper.
Why eastward expansion of NATO is a
problem for Russia?
Article
3 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides that in order to achieve the objectives
of the treaty ‘the parties will maintain and develop their individual and
collective capacity to resist armed attacks’ this means that the parties to the
treaty are free to formulate measures (read technology and weapons transfer)
amongst themselves so as to ‘restore and maintain the security of the North
Atlantic region’ This is justified, but it is at this juncture that the
principle of equal and indivisible security must be reiterated. The principle provides
that a State cannot secure itself at the expense of another State, in other
words, a State cannot ensure its security by making another State insecure.
This being said, the expansion of NATO and development of new military
technology puts at risk the security of whole Russia and presents a direct
challenge to the said principle.
With
Montenegro and North Macedonia joining NATO, there exist no buffer region
between Russia and NATO, and it won’t be wrong to state that, NATO as it stands
today knocks at Russian doors giving rise to well-founded beliefs of
insecurity. Absence of the buffer region and the development and deployment of
high-tech weapons by USA further stoke the flame of insecurity. Pentagon is
developing missile systems which would be capable of ranges of 5000 kilometres
and beyond. The mark 41 missile launcher, commonly known as the MK41 has been
frequently used as a defensive weapon for ‘retaliatory strikes’ in Iraq, Iran
and erstwhile Yugoslavia, and Russia has pointed out that it might be the
target of such defensive measures in the near future (Detsch, 2022).
Since
the North Atlantic Treaty enables parties to develop and maintain the collective
and individual capacity to resist attacks, the eastward expansion of NATO
incorporating Ukraine would enable such missile systems to be stationed in
Ukrainian territory. This would firstly expand the range of missile systems and
secondly reduce the time taken to hit targets in Russian territory and
affording less opportunity to Russia to defend itself.
Ukraine, NATO and USA: The Nexus
There
is no smoke without fire, this is true for the current developments as well and
to have an unbiased understanding, we need to understand the international
relations of USA and Ukraine. It is at this moment the document ‘Integrated Country
Strategy: Ukraine’ (hereinafter referred to as the document) becomes relevant.
The document, at the very outset, makes it clear that USA is building resilient
and self-reliant security and economic partner that shares the values of the
western world and solidifies American trajectory in the East. Further, it is
made clear that the geographical location of Ukraine is essential to American
commercial and military interests, the dividends of which can only be reaped by
USA when it is integrated into the western world. For this to happen, USA has
recognized that Ukraine needs to have a strong military, end corruption and
adopt political and economic reforms aimed at European integration (US Department of State, 2018).
The
document mentions that Ukraine and USA through NATO need to work in close
coordination, this means that when NATO conducts military drills it does it
under the direction of USA, this means that when NATO mandates economic reforms
in Ukraine it is USA mandating economic reforms in Ukraine. In other words,
when it is being said that Ukraine and NATO need to work in close cooperation,
it is meant that USA and Ukraine need to work in close cooperation so that
strengthens USA’s trajectory in the east. Mission Goals provided in the
document only support this hypothesis when it is stated that a regional
partnership with Ukraine will protect Americans in Ukraine and in the homeland
and will keep the ‘Russian threat far from NATO border’
Ukrainian
strategy for national security has identified the need to achieve active and
comprehensive cooperation with USA and other NATO member countries. Instead of
opting for the diplomatic route Ukraine’s strategy to defend itself against
alleged Russian aggression Ukraine seeks to strengthen its armed forces and
garner the support of international bodies such that economic and legal
pressure can be built on Russia. Ukraine’s National Security Strategy has
further laid down that a national sustainability protocol will be created,
which will ensure high level of readiness in times of crisis and this protocol
shall be in line with ‘NATO recommendations’ (Zelensky, 2020).
The
above-mentioned documents and events raise some concerns, If Ukraine is a
sovereign nation, then how can the strategy for national security be based on
NATO recommendations? When USA openly says that it views Ukraine as a reliable
commercial and security partner that strengthens USA’s eastward trajectory,
does Ukraine not understand that by joining hands when USA will cause some
alarm in Russia? When Ukraine knows that Russia has been protesting against
eastward expansion of NATO then why does it seek NATO membership? These
questions can be answered only when the American stake in Ukraine and Europe is
understood.
Most
of the gas requirements of European countries are fulfilled by Russia. In 2019,
Russia supplied around 41% of the gas requirements of EU and USA supplied 5% of
gas to EU (European Commission, n.d.). If USA’s claim
to a global superpower is to be supported, then USA needs to obtain a greater
market share in the European gas market which is currently dominated by Russia.
On the other hand, Russia, after the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has become
functional has emerged as the leading supplier of Liquefied Natural Gas in the
European Union. The Nord Stream 2 is an undersea
pipeline which runs from Russia to Germany and goes under Ukraine at one point.
Because the pipeline bypasses Ukraine, Ukraine cannot charge the transit fee on
the Russian export. Since the pipeline expands the Russian market, the commercial
prospects of USA are hurt, since the pipeline bypasses Ukraine, revenue
collected by Ukraine is reduced. Enemy of the enemy being a friend, USA and
Ukraine stand united against Russia, and NATO becomes the instrument. Ukraine,
if it gets the membership of NATO gets access to the eastern markets. The
Russian economy is dependent on oil, and natural gas, and USA knows that if it
can curtail Russian oil and natural gas, it can counter the Russian ‘aggression’
in Europe.
Conclusion
If
oil was the reason for preventing war in the Middle East, natural gas is the
reason for preserving peace in Europe. From the events of the last decade, it
appears that wherever USA has attempted to bring law and order through itself
or international institutions, it has created chaos and misery. International
narratives like prevention of terrorism and extremism, ‘Russian aggression’ in
the instant case have been constructed by USA to justify its actions but as a
matter of fact and law, no war can be justified. If Russia is guilty of having
committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, so are USA and all other
stakeholders. International institutions have created distrust by undertaking
actions which should not have been undertaken.
Russia-Ukraine
conflict has created a typical chicken-egg situation whereby NATO states that
it expands eastwards to counter Russian aggression, and Russia maintains that
it asserts control because NATO expands eastwards. NATO maintains that it wants
to keep Russian threat far away from NATO border, but it gives membership to
countries that share borders with Russia, consequently bringing NATO closer to
the Russian border. Thus on the one hand NATO wants to keep away from Russian
border, and on the other hand, it comes closer to Russian border. Is this aimed
towards controlling Russia in the manner NATO was aimed for controlling
countries bound by the Warsaw pact?
It
is said that no one wins in a war, while the Citizens of Ukraine suffer
directly; citizens of the globe suffer indirectly because of the sanctions
imposed on Russia. Global oil prices have soared since the War started and this
has hurt the recovery of global economy which is already hurt by the pandemic.
Increased oil and gas prices won’t hurt the developed countries as much as they
would hurt the third world and the developing countries, slashing of the
Employee Provident Fund rate in India is one of the many examples. Further,
American sanctions on Russia have destabilized the European market, the toll of
which is being paid by all countries dependent on the European market. Thus, it
won’t be wrong to say that the impacts of war have been both global and local.
The war is not a war for territorial control or internal or international security rather it is a war to control the energy market and revenue systems. This being said, we must understand that it is immaterial that oil and gas mining/supplying companies operate in territory controlled by Russia, NATO or Ukraine because oil and natural gas companies will keep operating and manufacturing/supplying oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas so produced will be purchased even if the price is high for the simple reason that every country aspires to be a developed country and become a superpower. Since the start of the war cost of oil has been at an all-time high, it is at this point, we must ask that whose benefit is it. Is Russia benefitting or is it USA? Or is it the oil and natural gas corporation(s) benefitting from the rise in oil prices? Is there even a real crisis or circumstances have been created so as to artificially inflate the prices of oil and natural gas? Answering these questions will surely help the global population to understand the Western Role in the Russia-Ukraine War.
*The Author is an Academic Tutor & TRIP Fellow at O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana-131001
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here or Scan the QR Code to submit your Manuscript.
Scan the QR
References
Detsch,
J. (2022, January 12). Putin’s Fixation With an Old-School U.S. Missile
Launcher. Foreign Policy.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile-defense-nato-ukraine/
European Commission.
(n.d.). Energy. Liquefied Natural Gas.
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/liquefied-natural-gas_en#related-links
From the
One-on-One Conversation of M.S. Gorbachev with H. Kohl.
(1990). https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325683/Document-09-Memorandum-of-conversation-between.pdf
McCgwire, M. (1998). NATO
Expansion: “A Policy Error of Historic Importance.” Cambridge University
Press, 24(1), 23–42.
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. (2021). Treaty between The United States of America and the Russian
Federation on security guarantees.
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
Record of
Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker.
(1990).
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325680/Document-06-Record-of-conversation-between.pdf
Suny, R. (2022, February
28). Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern
Europe could provoke Russia. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999
The North Atlantic Treaty,
(1949). https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
US Department of State.
(2018). Integrated Country Strategy: Ukraine.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ICS_Ukraine_UNCLASS_508.pdf
Wintour, P. (2022,
January 12). Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today. The
Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
Zelensky, V. (2020). DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (392/2020). https://picopublish.sequentialread.com/files/ukraine-president-decree-392-2020-translated/
Saurabh Kumar
Share post:
Author- Deepayan Malaviya*
Introduction
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a security alliance between North America and Europe the goal of which was to protect and preserve democratic freedom. The treaty was signed on 4th April, 1949, and it aimed at countering future aggression by the USSR (Wintour, 2022). The treaty established a balance of power in Europe, and it promised all members collective security and by virtue of this provision, member countries pool in their military resources and build their defence capabilities. Thus, NATO was an alliance of liberal countries and an engine of democracy promoting common values and interests and indirectly pushing back communism. Perceiving NATO as a threat, the USSR entered into the Warsaw pact in the year 1955. Warsaw pact and NATO shared a common goal, and that was that if one member of the pact was attacked, other members would defend the member(s) under attack. Thus, two instruments common in design and purposes were pitted against each other (The North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
In 1989 the Berlin wall collapsed, and in 1991 with the disintegration of the USSR and the demolition of the iron curtain, the onus rested on Germany whether to align with NATO or join Russia through the Warsaw pact. It was at this time that the US government, under the leadership of George H.W. Bush made an offer to Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and it suggested that if Germany became a NATO member, NATO would not expand ‘even an inch eastward’ and no new members would be admitted to NATO (Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker, 1990). The offer was accepted by Russia, and the Warsaw pact was called off, hoping that America would honour its promise. On the contrary, the USA has since claimed that no such offer was extended to Russia. Official American documents, however, speak otherwise (From the One-on-One Conversation of M.S. Gorbachev with H. Kohl, 1990).
NATO has not ceased expansion, and it is open for membership even today. In 1949 there were 12 founding members of NATO, but since the fall of the USSR, it has rapidly expanded eastwards, and in 1999 Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were admitted into the alliance. In 2004 there was another wave of expansion, and seven central and eastern European nations, erstwhile soviet republics, were incorporated in NATO. In 2009, Albania and Croatia joined NATO. The latest additions are that of Montenegro and Northern Macedonia in the year 2017-2020. Both Montenegro and Northern Macedonia are situated very close to Russia. Induction of new members does not stop here, and as of 2021, NATO has recognized Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine as aspiring members (NATO, 2020). Recently, NATO has been in talks with Finland, Serbia and Sweden for membership. This means that many east European nations which used to be a part of the erstwhile Soviet Union have acquired NATO membership and this has happened despite Russia’s warnings and protests.
NATO and Russia: Relationship so far
The relationship of Russia and NATO has seen its ups and downs through the course of history. The beginning of the decade saw the establishment of NATO-Russia Council (NRC). The NRC served as a platform of consultation for both parties to discuss matters important for security and cooperation. It is owing to the NRC that NATO and Russia have had stable relations for some time but it would not be wrong to say that in spite of the diplomatic platforms, NATO and Russia have been at loggerheads, and Russia has been quite vocal regarding the expansion of NATO. In the year 2007, Russian President, while addressing the Munich Conference, asked the ‘western partners’ against whom the expansion of NATO is addressed?
Russia is not alone when it voices its concerns against the expansionist policy of NATO and the thought has echoed in America as well. On 27 June, 1997 American foreign policy experts signed an open letter to American president Bill Clinton calling America’s efforts to expand NATO ‘a policy error of historic proportions’ (McCgwire, 1998). The thought and the warnings have only gotten stronger, and in the year 2008, William J Burns, former USA ambassador to Russia wrote a letter to the State Department saying that ‘the entry of Ukraine in the NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite’ the letter also stated that the ‘Ukraine’s entry in the NATO is a direct challenge to Russian interests’(Suny, 2022). Time and again, it has been reiterated that Russia’s protests have merit but seeing the narrative being developed, it appears that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim.
In the prevailing circumstances, Ukraine has received the support of NATO, and NATO has shown interest in adopting a diplomatic course to deescalate and end the conflict. NATO agrees for a ‘meaningful dialogue’ with Russia and is open to the idea of a NATO-Russia Council Meeting in the future. The practices of NATO, however, dictate otherwise. Time and again Russia has protested against the eastward expansion of NATO, citing security concerns; the latest crystallization of this concern has been in the form of the Treaty between The United States of America and the Russian Federation on security guarantees (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2021). By the medium of the treaty, Russia requested the United States of America to prevent the ‘eastward expansion of NATO and deny accession to the alliance to the States of the former USSR’; Russia requested USA to not deploy armed forces of international organizations and military coalitions in areas which could be perceived as a threat to national security. Further, Russia also requested USA not to deploy ground launched missiles which could attack target in the national territory of the other party. The treaty was out rightly rejected and called ‘unreasonable’ Thus, it appears that practices and claims of NATO don’t align and it appreciates the diplomatic route only on paper.
Why eastward expansion of NATO is a problem for Russia?
Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides that in order to achieve the objectives of the treaty ‘the parties will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attacks’ this means that the parties to the treaty are free to formulate measures (read technology and weapons transfer) amongst themselves so as to ‘restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic region’ This is justified, but it is at this juncture that the principle of equal and indivisible security must be reiterated. The principle provides that a State cannot secure itself at the expense of another State, in other words, a State cannot ensure its security by making another State insecure. This being said, the expansion of NATO and development of new military technology puts at risk the security of whole Russia and presents a direct challenge to the said principle.
With Montenegro and North Macedonia joining NATO, there exist no buffer region between Russia and NATO, and it won’t be wrong to state that, NATO as it stands today knocks at Russian doors giving rise to well-founded beliefs of insecurity. Absence of the buffer region and the development and deployment of high-tech weapons by USA further stoke the flame of insecurity. Pentagon is developing missile systems which would be capable of ranges of 5000 kilometres and beyond. The mark 41 missile launcher, commonly known as the MK41 has been frequently used as a defensive weapon for ‘retaliatory strikes’ in Iraq, Iran and erstwhile Yugoslavia, and Russia has pointed out that it might be the target of such defensive measures in the near future (Detsch, 2022).
Since the North Atlantic Treaty enables parties to develop and maintain the collective and individual capacity to resist attacks, the eastward expansion of NATO incorporating Ukraine would enable such missile systems to be stationed in Ukrainian territory. This would firstly expand the range of missile systems and secondly reduce the time taken to hit targets in Russian territory and affording less opportunity to Russia to defend itself.
Ukraine, NATO and USA: The Nexus
There is no smoke without fire, this is true for the current developments as well and to have an unbiased understanding, we need to understand the international relations of USA and Ukraine. It is at this moment the document ‘Integrated Country Strategy: Ukraine’ (hereinafter referred to as the document) becomes relevant. The document, at the very outset, makes it clear that USA is building resilient and self-reliant security and economic partner that shares the values of the western world and solidifies American trajectory in the East. Further, it is made clear that the geographical location of Ukraine is essential to American commercial and military interests, the dividends of which can only be reaped by USA when it is integrated into the western world. For this to happen, USA has recognized that Ukraine needs to have a strong military, end corruption and adopt political and economic reforms aimed at European integration (US Department of State, 2018).
The document mentions that Ukraine and USA through NATO need to work in close coordination, this means that when NATO conducts military drills it does it under the direction of USA, this means that when NATO mandates economic reforms in Ukraine it is USA mandating economic reforms in Ukraine. In other words, when it is being said that Ukraine and NATO need to work in close cooperation, it is meant that USA and Ukraine need to work in close cooperation so that strengthens USA’s trajectory in the east. Mission Goals provided in the document only support this hypothesis when it is stated that a regional partnership with Ukraine will protect Americans in Ukraine and in the homeland and will keep the ‘Russian threat far from NATO border’
Ukrainian strategy for national security has identified the need to achieve active and comprehensive cooperation with USA and other NATO member countries. Instead of opting for the diplomatic route Ukraine’s strategy to defend itself against alleged Russian aggression Ukraine seeks to strengthen its armed forces and garner the support of international bodies such that economic and legal pressure can be built on Russia. Ukraine’s National Security Strategy has further laid down that a national sustainability protocol will be created, which will ensure high level of readiness in times of crisis and this protocol shall be in line with ‘NATO recommendations’ (Zelensky, 2020).
The above-mentioned documents and events raise some concerns, If Ukraine is a sovereign nation, then how can the strategy for national security be based on NATO recommendations? When USA openly says that it views Ukraine as a reliable commercial and security partner that strengthens USA’s eastward trajectory, does Ukraine not understand that by joining hands when USA will cause some alarm in Russia? When Ukraine knows that Russia has been protesting against eastward expansion of NATO then why does it seek NATO membership? These questions can be answered only when the American stake in Ukraine and Europe is understood.
Most of the gas requirements of European countries are fulfilled by Russia. In 2019, Russia supplied around 41% of the gas requirements of EU and USA supplied 5% of gas to EU (European Commission, n.d.). If USA’s claim to a global superpower is to be supported, then USA needs to obtain a greater market share in the European gas market which is currently dominated by Russia. On the other hand, Russia, after the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has become functional has emerged as the leading supplier of Liquefied Natural Gas in the European Union. The Nord Stream 2 is an undersea pipeline which runs from Russia to Germany and goes under Ukraine at one point. Because the pipeline bypasses Ukraine, Ukraine cannot charge the transit fee on the Russian export. Since the pipeline expands the Russian market, the commercial prospects of USA are hurt, since the pipeline bypasses Ukraine, revenue collected by Ukraine is reduced. Enemy of the enemy being a friend, USA and Ukraine stand united against Russia, and NATO becomes the instrument. Ukraine, if it gets the membership of NATO gets access to the eastern markets. The Russian economy is dependent on oil, and natural gas, and USA knows that if it can curtail Russian oil and natural gas, it can counter the Russian ‘aggression’ in Europe.
Conclusion
If oil was the reason for preventing war in the Middle East, natural gas is the reason for preserving peace in Europe. From the events of the last decade, it appears that wherever USA has attempted to bring law and order through itself or international institutions, it has created chaos and misery. International narratives like prevention of terrorism and extremism, ‘Russian aggression’ in the instant case have been constructed by USA to justify its actions but as a matter of fact and law, no war can be justified. If Russia is guilty of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, so are USA and all other stakeholders. International institutions have created distrust by undertaking actions which should not have been undertaken.
Russia-Ukraine conflict has created a typical chicken-egg situation whereby NATO states that it expands eastwards to counter Russian aggression, and Russia maintains that it asserts control because NATO expands eastwards. NATO maintains that it wants to keep Russian threat far away from NATO border, but it gives membership to countries that share borders with Russia, consequently bringing NATO closer to the Russian border. Thus on the one hand NATO wants to keep away from Russian border, and on the other hand, it comes closer to Russian border. Is this aimed towards controlling Russia in the manner NATO was aimed for controlling countries bound by the Warsaw pact?
It is said that no one wins in a war, while the Citizens of Ukraine suffer directly; citizens of the globe suffer indirectly because of the sanctions imposed on Russia. Global oil prices have soared since the War started and this has hurt the recovery of global economy which is already hurt by the pandemic. Increased oil and gas prices won’t hurt the developed countries as much as they would hurt the third world and the developing countries, slashing of the Employee Provident Fund rate in India is one of the many examples. Further, American sanctions on Russia have destabilized the European market, the toll of which is being paid by all countries dependent on the European market. Thus, it won’t be wrong to say that the impacts of war have been both global and local.
The war is not a war for territorial control or internal or international security rather it is a war to control the energy market and revenue systems. This being said, we must understand that it is immaterial that oil and gas mining/supplying companies operate in territory controlled by Russia, NATO or Ukraine because oil and natural gas companies will keep operating and manufacturing/supplying oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas so produced will be purchased even if the price is high for the simple reason that every country aspires to be a developed country and become a superpower. Since the start of the war cost of oil has been at an all-time high, it is at this point, we must ask that whose benefit is it. Is Russia benefitting or is it USA? Or is it the oil and natural gas corporation(s) benefitting from the rise in oil prices? Is there even a real crisis or circumstances have been created so as to artificially inflate the prices of oil and natural gas? Answering these questions will surely help the global population to understand the Western Role in the Russia-Ukraine War.
*The Author is an Academic Tutor & TRIP Fellow at O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana-131001
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here or Scan the QR Code to submit your Manuscript.
References
Detsch, J. (2022, January 12). Putin’s Fixation With an Old-School U.S. Missile Launcher. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile-defense-nato-ukraine/
European Commission. (n.d.). Energy. Liquefied Natural Gas. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/liquefied-natural-gas_en#related-links
From the One-on-One Conversation of M.S. Gorbachev with H. Kohl. (1990). https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325683/Document-09-Memorandum-of-conversation-between.pdf
McCgwire, M. (1998). NATO Expansion: “A Policy Error of Historic Importance.” Cambridge University Press, 24(1), 23–42.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2021). Treaty between The United States of America and the Russian Federation on security guarantees. https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
NATO. (2020). Enlargement. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker. (1990). https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325680/Document-06-Record-of-conversation-between.pdf
Suny, R. (2022, February 28). Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999
The North Atlantic Treaty, (1949). https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
US Department of State. (2018). Integrated Country Strategy: Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ICS_Ukraine_UNCLASS_508.pdf
Wintour, P. (2022, January 12). Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
Zelensky, V. (2020). DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (392/2020). https://picopublish.sequentialread.com/files/ukraine-president-decree-392-2020-translated/
Share this:
Related