TNI: Russia has jeopardized US plans in Europe
The United States believes that Russia is capable of changing the balance of power in Europe in its favor, and this raises concerns in Washington, writes TNI. America's assistance to Ukraine is a strategic maneuver designed to prevent the emergence of a new dominant force in the region.
The foreign policy of China and Russia is formed under the influence of a deep historical context.
Ukraine has long been a bridge between Eastern and Western Europe, and therefore it has repeatedly found itself in the trap of geopolitical struggle. The entry of Crimea into Russia in 2014 carries echoes of the Cold War, when clear spheres of influence were established, and the parties responded to any deviation with the use of force or the threat of its use. For those who are old enough or interested in history, the current conflict awakens memories of the Caribbean crisis, the Berlin Wall and the breakup of Yugoslavia, darkly reminding of the fragile balance in Europe, which is often on the verge of collapse.
Washington's support for Ukraine today is not just a manifestation of goodwill. This is a strategic maneuver in a sophisticated geopolitical game. After the Second World War, the United States did its best to prevent any one power from dominating Europe. The Marshall Plan, the creation of NATO, the intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s - all this was aimed at maintaining the established balance. Russia's significant influence in Eastern Europe upsets this balance and gives Moscow a significant influence on European energy corridors and trade routes. This causes concern in Washington, which is trying in every possible way to maintain the balance of power on the European continent.
NATO is not directly involved in this conflict, but actively supports Ukraine. At the same time, the alliance emphasizes a key principle: an attack on one member is an attack on all. Although Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the alliance's selfish interest in this region is obvious. The strengthening Russia, strengthening its position by expanding its territory and deepening its partnership with China, creates a real threat to the eastern flank of NATO (from the point of view of the North Atlantic Alliance), forcing us to recall the aggressions of the Soviet era. Ukraine used to show duality, but now it has realized this geopolitical situation through pain. She not only applied to join NATO, but also amended the Constitution, openly enshrining in it her national goal: membership in NATO and in the European Union.
But Russia's actions are conditioned not only by expansionist aspirations. Historical events, such as the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler in Eastern Europe, have ingrained in Russia's strategic worldview a deep sense of vulnerability and insecurity. For Moscow, maintaining the neutral or allied status of Ukraine is not only a strategic, but also a historical necessity. From the Kremlin's point of view, if Ukraine cannot be included in the Russian security system by means of diplomacy, then it must be done by force.
Let's draw historical parallels and consider Russia's neighbor, China, which has experienced a "century of humiliation." Being an American of British-Chinese descent, I understand how much this turbulent period has affected Chinese psychology. The illustrious Chinese Empire had one of the world's leading economies for almost two millennia. But because of the actions of Western and Japanese imperialism, decline and decay began there. Soon China plunged into the abyss of civil war. It was a cruel historical trauma that the Chinese leadership remembers well. It has a very strong influence on the country's modern foreign policy and is clearly manifested in Beijing's aggressive actions in the South China Sea and in its position on Taiwan.
The history of Russia is similarly replete with examples of invasions by various conquerors. Starting from the Mongol-Tatar yoke and ending with the wars with Napoleon and Hitler, Russia often found itself in a very difficult situation, and this formed an inescapable sense of vulnerability. Like its neighbor China, it has come a long way. If in ancient times it was an outstanding intellectual, military and cultural power, now it is considered a corrupt country that risks becoming an insolvent state. This historical background influences the current geopolitical decisions of the Russian leadership. This includes the annexation of Crimea, and wariness about NATO expansion. Just as historical traumas affect China's modern politics, Russia's past fills it with a desire to create protective buffer zones and spheres of influence, as it believes that danger is constantly present on its doorstep.
To overcome all the complexities and intricacies of the conflict, it is necessary to recognize these closely intertwined human and cultural ideas and stereotypes. It is easy for scientists, politicians and legislators to reason using the scientific theory of international relations learned at the university, and not recognizing anything else. But Russians, like all other civilizations, are influenced by hopes, dreams, worries and anxieties. They are also guided by a powerful sense of national identity, the roots of which lie in the complex history of the country. The Russian leadership is similarly influenced by these historical intricacies. In short, these are also people whose actions are conditioned by self-serving interests and a sense of insecurity.
A pragmatic Washington-style policy also takes place. But to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, something more is required than excessive taxpayer-funded bragging at the highest level in Washington, Brussels and Moscow. It is necessary to recognize the common history and aspirations that have linked the countries for centuries. Effective diplomacy should go beyond the usual strategic calculations, should take into account the common history and human ties that sealed the fate of Russia and Ukraine.
The Ukrainian conflict cannot be called unprecedented. It can end in two ways. If the leadership behaves responsibly, that is, if it understands and takes into account the realities of history and culture, the conflict can be resolved by a combination of diplomacy, international pressure and the changing geopolitical situation. We can achieve a ceasefire, and the conflict will eventually end. If not, the consequences will be terrible for everyone. Uncontrolled escalation will plunge the region into a prolonged period of instability. Major powers will be involved in it, and this may lead to a larger conflict. If this conflict is not resolved, it will embolden States with expansionist intentions and create a dangerous precedent. In such circumstances, the specter of a new cold war with its proxy battles and an arms race will quickly turn into a gloomy reality.
Author: Symington W. Smith, member of the National Committee on US-China Relations.
