Intervention between Russia and Ukraine
by Rava Aisyah Divasha
Introduction
The intervention between Russia and Ukraine was caused by the emergency that threatened the citizens of Russian descent in Ukraine after the decision of Victor Yankovich, the president of Ukraine. Over the past year, due to the increase in military activities on February 24, 2022, the strife has been effectively secured in Russian and Ukrainian media and other nations around the world. One perspective of specific intrigue to the public is how the media frames the conflict, which impacts how people understand and interpret the international conflict.[1]
On 4 March 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a statement that the deployment of military forces to Crimea, Ukraine, is the last resort. Putin also said that Russia has the right to use the option to protect Ukrainians of Russian descent who are being terrorized in Ukraine. He argued that the uniformed troops without national symbols accused of being Russian soldiers and seen roaming Crimea are local self-defense forces. This stance from Vladimir Putin poses a threat in the economic and security fields not only for the two countries but also for the whole world.[2]
Issue
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an institution that houses a total of 28 members that have a collective defense system among their members, established on 4 April 1949, and the headquarters are located at Boulevard Leopold III, 110 Brussels, Belgium, on the northeast perimeter of the city. NATO and Russia established a relationship way back in 1991 after the Cold War, this led to Russia joining the Partnership for Peace program in 1994. The formal basic relation between the 2 sides is provided by the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. Since then, they have become strategic partners, such as in military and diplomatic matters. Because Russia tried to annex Crimea in 2014, the relationship between NATO and Russia became resentful. Because of the military intervention, a lot of things that happened will affect the relationship between Russia and NATO and might also affect the whole world. So, how does the conflict between Russia and Ukraine affect NATO?[3]
Vladimir Putin made a statement that Russia was trying to return to being a respected superpower and having a major role on the international stage after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In its efforts, Russia in the Putin era experienced economic improvements and also the improvement of the Russian military to become a professional and well-trained military, making Russia now emerge as a large and influential regional power on the European continent. As a large regional power, Russia needs to strengthen its influence in the region, where the region in question is of course the countries that used to be a part of the former Soviet Union. At the moment Russia’s biggest threat is NATO involvement. The views and facts that lead to the cause of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stem from the problem of Russia’s security which is threatened due to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. Russia, in maintaining its defense security, claims that if this is allowed to continue, it will threaten the security of the Russian state, if NATO continues to expand its influence into the region. Ukraine will then be greeted with serious resistance by Russia which includes military action that will be carried out by Russia.
NATO indirectly has an interest in Ukraine. In this conflict, Russia fears that the Ukrainian government which tends to be pro-western will join NATO and that means NATO will place their troops and missiles in Ukraine where these missiles can threaten Russia from a close range. Because of this Russia considers Crimea important for its interest not only because of historical factors but also the location of Russian military bases, especially in Sevastopol which is the headquarters of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea fleet. Crimea’s location on the Black Sea is very strategic for Russia’s Geopolitical interests. Since then, NATO’s relations with Russia have become tense and NATO also promised Ukraine that they could join the alliance. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO condemned Russia’s acts of military aggression and NATO also canceled various cooperation agreements with Russia because of the outbreak of the conflict.[4]
Following independence, Ukraine declared itself a neutral state, but formed a limited military partnership with the Russian Federation, and other Commonwealth of Independent States countries (CIS) and a partnership with NATO since 1994. In the 2000s, the government began leaning towards NATO, and a deeper cooperation with the alliance was set by the NATO- Ukraine Action Plan signed in 2002. It was later agreed that the question of joining NATO should be answered by a national referendum at some point in the future. Deposed President Viktor Yanukovych considered the current level of cooperation between Ukraine and NATO sufficient and was against Ukraine joining NATO from the Soviet Union.[5]
Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union until 1991 and before that it had no independence of its own, it was part of the Soviet Union and since then has been a less perfect democracy with a very weak economy and foreign policy that was divided between pro-Russian in the east and pro-European in the west. First and foremost, Ukrainians wanted to join the EU to ease their economic burdens. This all began as an internal. Ukrainian crisis in November 2013, when President Viktor Yanukovych rejected the deal for greater integration with the EU, sparking mass protest, which Yanukovych attempted to put down violently.[6]
The main reason for Ukraine not joining NATO was because Ukrainian society was reluctant to make hasty decisions on such sensitive issues as membership in multilateral defense alliances, whether Russia-led or promoted by the West. It rather means that Kyiv has chosen more self-centered tactics. It will refrain from strong symbolic steps that could trigger the escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Within this logic, Ukraine will continue its cooperation with the EU in those fields where it does not inhibit Ukrainian interests, Ukraine’s participation in the EU operations in the Balkans, in the EU naval operation Atlanta, and visa liberalization.[7]
For annexing Crimea, the United States has declared its list of sanctions against Russia, adding the country’s biggest bank Sberbank, and energy companies, some of them privately owned. The energy companies are Gazprom, Transneft, Surgutneftgas and Lukoil. The Russian oil giant, Rosneft and the independent gas producer Novatek are also on the list, the Treasury Department said in a statement. Five state-owned defense and high-tech corporations were included in the sanctions. Among other measures, The EU preferred to impose a series of economic and political sanctions on Russia. Russia banned exports of services and equipment for Russian energy companies. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told journalists “We agreed that we can additionally reconsider the structure of the investment and redistribute some of the money within the 60 percent share to major companies that have lost foreign borrowing markets. This concerns primarily Rosneft and Novatek, “he said. Both companies appealed to the government for financial support to compensate for the foreign sources of financing. Further, NATO members are also part of the overall economic and political response, including the EU, which includes the imposition of economic sanctions against Russia.[8]
One of the key novelties of EU policy in the Common Strategy is the inclusion of justice and home affairs and regional and cross-border cooperation among the main priorities of the EU in its relations with Ukraine. Regional and cross-border co-operation was also included among the priority sectors in the new 2000–2003 Tacis regulation, in part as a growing realization of the potentially negative impact of EU enlargement on direct neighbors such as Ukraine, and that this would be most strongly felt in regions of Ukraine bordering the enlarged EU. Despite strong Ukrainian requests, the EU did not acknowledge Ukraine’s aspirations for EU membership in the Common Strategy. Instead, it states that the EU acknowledges Ukraine’s European aspirations and welcomes Ukrainians’ pro-European choice, stated in the official statements from the EU.
Furthermore, the EU had pursued an essentially undifferentiated policy towards the countries of the former Soviet Union (except the Baltic States) in the early 1990s. Negotiations on a new type of bilateral agreement, Partnership and Co-operation Agreements, were opened with all countries of the CIS. However, a more differentiated approach soon emerged, as specific issues and concerns connected to particular countries required a special EU response. The specific Ukrainian issue was nuclear safety and the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which featured prominently among European concerns relating to the former Soviet Union in the early post-Cold War period.
After President Viktor Yankovich refused to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement in November 2013, twenty-seven visits by Cox-Kowasnieski mission to Ukraine, regular presence of EU diplomats in the court session against the opposition leaders, and frequent reminders from top-level Brussels officials that the EU-Ukraine association agreement will be signed only if the problem selective justice will be resolved created the kink between political and economic dimension. In addition, the strong response of the EU to politically motivated criminal processes against the leaders of the opposition resonated with the demands of the society and added additional significance to political debate in 2011–2013. As a result, this internal debate was gradually reframed from a purely government-opposition conflict into a broader discourse about Ukraine’s return to Europe. All this made the soft power of the EU stronger and provided it with some leverage in Ukrainian politics. However, the link between the economic and political dimensions should not be taken for granted.[9]
Rules
Between Russia and Ukraine, while Russia continued to criticize NATO’s expansion, Russia increased their defense on Russia’s borders and Ukraine to maintain their regional Security. Intervention is a form of interference in the affairs of another state that is dictatorial in nature. The principle of non-intervention as one of the basic foundations in international law is closely related to the principle of state sovereignty. This principle is referring to the actions of the states that want to control a country from various aspects of existing statehood. The principle of non-intervention is part of international custom and is based on the concept of respect for the territorial sovereignty of states. Instrumentally, this principle is manifested in Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter. The provisions of the charter clearly state that intervention is not permitted in relations between countries.[10] Sovereign countries are not only independent but are also equal to each other. This arrangement was further strengthened by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/25/2625 (XXV) issued on 24 October 1970, which was later accepted as the General Assembly Declaration Concerning the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Inter-State Cooperation. With the charter of the United Nations. A sovereign State remains subject to international law and must not violate the sovereignty of other states.[11]
Analysis
In this case, Russia has clearly violated the principle of non-intervention for its actions in intervening in Ukraine. The consequences arising from this intervention turned out to be quite diverse. American President Barack Obama clearly expressed deep concern regarding Russia’s clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The EU preferred to impose a series of economic and political sanctions on Russia.[12]
The United States, NATO and the European Union have joined together to unleash an economic and financial war against Russia to generate an internal economic crisis that could contribute to the overthrow of Vladimir Putin from power and make this country obey the dictates of the Western economic and military powers. The economic and financial war against Russia was adopted in the face of the impossibility of direct military intervention in Ukraine by NATO, the western military alliance, which could trigger a new world war of catastrophic consequences for humanity with the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons that caused an intervention.[13]
The major Western economic and military powers have ruled out sending troops to fight in Ukraine, using economic and financial sanctions as the main means to economically weaken Russia. In the first year of the conflict, the country lost 30%-35% of GDP. this led to the largest recession in Ukraine’s history.The response of the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia and other countries to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unprecedented. Even Switzerland, a country famous for its neutrality and banking secrecy, has also imposed financial sanctions on Russia. There is a high risk that Russia will face a financial crisis that will cause its biggest banks to collapse.[14]
Russia has used international law to justify its position by arguing that it was an act of preemptive self-defense against the eastern expansion of NATO in itself based on another international treaty. According to international law, a treaty can only be concluded between states that have the capacity to enter into legal relations. Therefore, any treaty involving Crimea would have to be concluded between Russia and Ukraine, not just Russia and Crimea as it would have to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. From an international law perspective. This conflict has raised concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war.
The Russian military intervention in Ukraine has been widely condemned as an act of aggression by the international community, including by the United Nations and other international organizations. The unlawful nature of the intervention emphasized the importance of defending the basic principles of international law. International law provides several mechanisms for addressing a violation of the territorial integrity of a sovereign state such as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. These may include the prohibition on the threat and use of force by one state against another and the possibility of taking collective action to maintain international peace and security. The international community can impose economic and political sanctions against the offending state in response to its aggressive actions.[15]
Conclusion
Russia’s evolution from the Soviet Union to Putin’s regime illustrates the intricate interplay of history, politics and power dynamics. Its path, marked by conflicts and transformations, continues to shape the geopolitical landscape, leaving a profound impact on the global stage. President Putin declared military intervention in Crimea because it was the last resort, and this happened in 2014. And he wants to protect Russian citizens in Ukraine. The action that President Putin took was viewed by the world as a threat, and it can cause posed economic and security challenges not just for the involved nations but also for the entire globe.
Yet, NATO’s involvement in Eastern Europe presents a formidable obstacle. Russia views NATO’s expansion into this region, especially in Ukraine, as a direct threat to its security. The prospect of Ukraine, ideologically leaning towards the West, joining NATO alarms Russia. This potential alignment implies NATO deploying troops and missiles in Ukraine, disturbingly close to Russia’s borders. Crimea, historically significant and housing vital Russian military bases, becomes a flashpoint. The strategic importance of Crimea, especially the headquarters of the Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol, intensifies Russia’s interests in the region, making it a geopolitical battleground.
Furthermore, the competition for influence in Ukraine between Russia and the EU is complicated. In an effort to influence Ukraine’s internal political climate, both organizations send their political views onto the country. Russia promotes its form of sovereign democracy, while the EU supports human rights and open democratic processes. Ukraine’s economic decisions are in a zero-sum game as Russia and the EU compete for advantageous economic conditions. Regarding foreign policy and global security, Russia seeks to ensure Ukraine’s neutrality or deeper security alliances, while the EU advocates for Ukraine’s compliance with its choices and even suggests NATO membership.
References
[1] Jonathan Masters, “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia,” https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia, accessed on 10 December 2023.
[2] CNN, “Putin: Russia force only ‘last resort’ in Ukraine,” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26433309, accessed on 11 December 2023.
[3] NATO, “NATO headquarter,” https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49284.htm, accessed on 11 December 2023.
[4] Hidriyah, S, (2022). Kajian Singkat Terhadap Isu Aktual Dan Strategis Eskalasi Ketegangan Rusia-Ukraina. Kajian Singkat Terhadap Isu Aktual Dan Strategis, XIV, 7–8, https://berkas.dpr.go.id/puslit/files/info_singkat/Info Singkat-XIV-4-II-P3DI-Februari-2022–229.pdf, accessed on 15 December 2023.
[5] Civic Nation, “Ukraine”, https://civic-nation.org/?country=108, accessed on 15 December 2023.
[6] Max Fisher, “Everything you need to know about the 2014 Ukraine crisis” https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know, accessed on 15 December 2023.
[7] Stephen Collinson, “Why Ukraine’s plea for NATO membership is such a profound dilemma for the West” https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/10/politics/ukraine-nato-western-dilemma/index.html, accessed on 25 December 2023.
[8] U.S Department of the Treasury, “U.S. Treasury Announces Unprecedented & Expansive Sanctions Against Russia, Imposing Swift and Severe Economic Costs,” https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0608, accessed on 25 December 2023.
[9] Marius Vahl, 2003, Background Paper on EU policy Towards Ukraine, accessed on 25 December 2023.
[10] Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, 1990, Pengantar Hukum Internasional, hlm. 13.
[11] United Nations Treaty Collection https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf, accessed on 25 December 2023.
[12] Anh Huyen, “ Akibat Global dari Sanksi-Sanksi Terhadap Rusia.” http://vovworld.vn/id-ID/Ulasan-Berita/Akibat-global-dari-sanksisanksi-terhadap-Rusia/303358.vov, accessed on 27 Oktober 2023.
[13] Think Tank Review, “Think Tank reports on the invasion of Ukraine,” https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/library/library-blog/posts/think-tank-reports-on-the-invasion-of-ukraine/, accessed on 1 January 2023.
[14] Michelle Kilfoyle, “Ukraine: what’s the global economic impact of Russia invansion?” https://www.economicsobservatory.com/ukraine-whats-the-global-economic-impact-of-russias-invasion, accessed on 1 January 2023.
[15] Marko Milanovic, “What is Russia’s Legal Justification for Using Force against Ukraine?” https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-is-russias-legal-justification-for-using-force-against-ukraine/, Accessed on 1 January 2023
