Dr Greg Austin has been involved in global security issues for many years and is a Professorial Fellow at the East West Institute, set up to provide links during the cold war.
“Russia, feels its security has been threatened so it has acted to protect its own interests. At the same time, Russia has also acted to reverse the historical outcome of the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are parts of what President Putin calls historic Russia which ended up outside of the Russian Federation with the breakup of the USSR, in Putin’s view, one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century. He feels very strongly that that was a big mistake.”
Europe also bears some responsibility, “the eastern policy of the European Union is actually one of the major aggravating factors. “What Russia was clearly signaling for the last 5-10 years was that if this eastern policy continued, both in the European Union and in NATO, then Russia would take a very dim view of it in security terms.”
He continues, “The crisis we are dealing with is in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has just been delayed for 20 years and now we are seeing it play out. It’s not easily going to be repaired simply by dialogue between leaders. We have to try and find some diplomatic solution. This about the social and economic structure of what Putin calls the common military strategic space around Russia.”
While it is undeniably legitimate for NATO and the EU to desire to expand and equally so for those in Ukraine to look west, the problem between the West and Russia comes down to basics, “unfortunately, there was never any meeting of the minds between Russia and the West about what that security dilemma for Russia meant.”
He adds, “Many people in the West don’t accept the Russian argument, but it doesn’t change the Russian argument. Russia has returned in a sense to what you might call 19th century, realist power based understanding of security where it wants a neutral Ukraine on its border. The West has been pursuing a very different policy of incorporating Ukraine into its sphere.”
No quick fix
The outlook is not good. “I think that it’s very hard to see a compromise or solution in the near term because what we’ve got are two fundamentally different views of territorial sovereignty, two very different views of power, and two very different views of legitimate interest. So this crisis is just beginning in my view.”
Austin notes that the UN is blocked on this as well as many other issues, saying that the UN General Assembly voted on the matter because the Security Council couldn’t agree anything. “That in the sense demonstrates that we’re in for another 20, 30, 40 year military political crisis. This is not going to go away tomorrow. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
Worse, he insists, does not mean war. While Russia has used military forces, it was a long way from the forces they could have used, “That in a sense helps keep the crisis very much subdued.” But that should not mask the scale of the offence, “One state has taken a piece of territory of another state is one of the most serious crimes in international relations in diplomatic terms. Whatever the justification was the West is not going to take it lightly.”
Meaningful talks
In Austin’s view, only dialogue can resolve this crisis and the differing perspectives behind it. “Well, there is lots of talking. But there’s not much meeting of minds at the official level.” The situation seems to be similar to that when the EWI was set up, to facilitate and add to these discussions.
“In a situation where the two parties are talking but there’s not much dialogue, then it is important for other people to express their opinions and to come up with ideas about how there can be a meeting of minds even if that ultimately is going to take several years—and I think this will take several years.”
While all parties are entitled to self-determination, Austin says, “If the leaders are talking, but without resolve effectively, then the citizens are fully, not only entitled but probably obliged, to express their point of view on the security crisis and to help drive a solution which is peaceful and which avoids the worst aspects of possible confrontation.”
He adds, “What is already on the cards is an escalating economic confrontation. We have to make sure that that economic confrontation does not damage the livelihood of people in Ukraine, in Russia, and in western Europe or eastern Europe.”
A long-term solution also has to address the underlying causes. “What the EU is doing is from many points of view good, but from the Russian point of view not what it wants. It wants an arrangement where Russia is an equal partner with the European Union in shaping, from the outside, the strategic orientation of Ukraine.”
With Russia forcing the West to pay attention to their concerns, there may be a long-term benefit, “out of this crisis may come some opportunity to actually achieve some understanding that brings Russia and NATO much closer together, fundamentally.”