The American policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine and its repercussions on NATO
The study revolves around analyzing the dimensions of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is considered one of the most serious international crises in international relations since the end of the Cold War, because it includes the threat of a large-scale conflict on the European continent, between the Russian Federation on the one hand, and between the United States of America and the countries of the European Union, and NATO on the other hand, and the study specifically examines the dimensions, determinants, characteristics and features of US policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and its repercussions on NATO. The study focused in its axes on the dimensions of the Ukrainian crisis and its developments, the strategic importance of Ukraine in the Russian and American perspectives, the determinants of American policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war, the repercussions of the Ukrainian crisis on NATO, and the expected scenarios for the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
The study, using the analytical and deductive approach, and the decision-making approach, reached several important conclusions, including: Russia cannot back down in Ukraine or leave it to become part of the European Union or NATO, and Moscow will not stop its military operations in Ukraine until it obtains clear commitments that NATO will not make new expansions on its borders, and that Russia did not fully achieve its military goals as planned, and that the Russian-Ukrainian war restored the cohesion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in an unprecedented way, and made it more cohesive than before, and pushed European countries to more armaments and increase European military spending significantly, and prompted countries that were neutral, such as Finland and Sweden, to submit a formal request to join the Atlantic Alliance, which means developments that are not in favor of Russia.
an introduction:
The Russian military intervention in Ukraine on February 24, 2022 is one of the most prominent complex geopolitical crises facing Europe after the end of the Cold War period, in light of the efforts of the United States of America and the European Union to besiege Russia geographically, through its former republics on the one hand, and the desire of Russian President Vladimir Putin to restore Soviet glories, by controlling Ukraine, in order to protect Russia’s vital interests, on the other hand.
The Ukrainian crisis has entered a new phase of escalation after Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized, on February 21, 2022, the independence of the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine, along Russia’s borders, after which Russia launched, on February 24, 2022, a comprehensive military attack against Ukraine, just two days after This declaration of independence came as a result of Ukraine showing its intention to proceed with its attempts to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, which Russia sees as a direct threat to its national security. And disarming Ukraine, preventing its accession to NATO, and forcing it to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk.
Research problem:
The Ukrainian crisis represents the most serious crisis on the international scene since the end of the Cold War in the early nineties of the twentieth century, because it involves a threat of a large-scale conflict in the European continent, and may result in destabilizing the foundations of the world order dominated by the United States of America, and paves the way for the establishment of A new multipolar world order, in which Russia and its ally China will have an active role. Ukraine offers a new model of post-Cold War wars, as it constitutes an important axis in the conflict between the major powers (Russia, the European Union, and the United States of America), as each of these powers has pressure cards that it employs in this crisis, so how did the United States deal with This crisis? Did the American policies achieve their targeted results in the Russian-Ukrainian war?
Research methodology:
This study relied on the historical approach, in identifying the development and evolution of the Ukrainian crisis, as well as relying on the analytical and deductive approach to identify the strategic importance of Ukraine from the Russian and American perspectives. Ukraine, the features and characteristics of this policy, and the consequences of its implementation, as well as learning about the position of NATO countries and their policies to confront the Russian military in Ukraine, and how to coordinate efforts between them with regard to the policy of sanctions that it imposed on Russia.
Study questions:
This study seeks to answer a set of research questions, including:
1. How did the Ukrainian crisis begin? What are its dimensions and roots?
2. What is the strategic importance of Ukraine from the Russian and American perspectives?
3. What are the determinants of US policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine? What are its features and features? What are the results of its implementation?
4. To what extent has Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine affected NATO? What are the implications of this on the policies of the alliance? What measures have been taken to confront the Russian military in Ukraine?
5. What are the expected scenarios for the Russian-Ukrainian war?
Study division:
The study is divided into three sections, the first section discusses the dimensions of the Ukrainian crisis and its developments, in which the researcher discusses the essence and roots of the Ukrainian crisis, the strategic importance of Ukraine from the Russian and American perspectives, and the indicators of military strength in the Russian and Ukrainian armies, and the second topic analyzes: the American policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine In it, the researcher discusses the determinants of American policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war, the features and features of this policy, and the consequences of its implementation. As for the third topic, it deals with the repercussions of the Ukrainian crisis on NATO, in which the researcher discusses the position of NATO countries regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and the policies of the alliance. In this regard, with an indication of the expected scenarios for the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
The first topic
Dimensions of the Ukrainian-Russian crisis and its developments
The roots of the Ukrainian crisis go back, originally, to the expansion of the field of activity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization “NATO” to the countries bordering the Russian Federation, contrary to the promises made by the major Western countries, upon the collapse of the Soviet Union and the unification of Germany, to the Russian leadership, which ruled not to Expansion of the alliance in Eastern and Central Europe.(*)
In 2008, Europe witnessed the eruption of a crisis somewhat similar to the current Ukrainian crisis, when the Republic of Georgia, bordering the Russian Federation, expressed its desire to join the European Union and NATO. Since August 2008, clashes have occurred between Georgian forces and pro-Russian separatist forces in the autonomous region of South Ossetia, followed by the incursion of Russian tanks into this region in a move Moscow said was aimed at protecting its citizens, many of whom hold Russian passports. Within days, Russian forces took control of South Ossetia, expelled Georgian forces from the region, and even launched attacks on the outskirts of Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi.
First: The essence and roots of the Ukrainian crisis:
The current Ukrainian crisis erupted on November 21, 2013, when the Ukrainian government, close to Moscow, announced that it would not sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. After this date, mass demonstrations erupted in Kyiv in support of joining the European Union, and on February 22, 2014, and in the face of street pressure, the Ukrainian parliament removed President Viktor Yanukovych in a revolution that the Ukrainians call the Revolution of Dignity, and on February 28, 2014, Russian special forces took control of the island Crimea, which Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev annexed in 1954 to Ukraine, and a referendum was held on March 16, 2014, the results of which showed that a large majority of the Crimean population, who are Russian speakers, support joining Russia. This entailed NATO canceling its civil and military cooperation with Russia, and then Western countries imposed economic sanctions on it. While the supporters of Russia in the “Donbass region” (*) declared the establishment of the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk unilaterally. On May 25, 2014, Petro Poroshenko was chosen as the new president of Ukraine, and battles raged between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian army.
In September 2014, an agreement was reached in the city of Minsk, the capital of Belarus, between representatives of the governments of Russia and Ukraine, the separatist forces in Donetsk and Lugansk, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe with the aim of ending the war and finding a political solution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. However, the terms of that agreement remained a dead letter. On January 23, 2015, the President of the unilaterally declared Donetsk Republic stated that he was not interested in the Minsk Agreement, which entailed the signing of the Minsk II Agreement on February 12, 2015, which recommended a decentralized system in Donetsk and Luhansk, which was rejected, in fact, by the central government in Kyiv. . Thus, the pavement was set for the outbreak of a long civil war that resulted in about 14,000 deaths, and the resumption of the Cold War, especially after the West showed that it was not interested in taking into account Russian strategic interests, after the new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was elected in May 2019, showed his intention to continue In strengthening his country’s orientation towards the West.
On November 10, 2021, Washington requested clarifications from Russia regarding the “unusual” movements of its forces on the Ukrainian border. While the Russian president accused the West of delivering weapons and sending military personnel to Kyiv, and of conducting “provocative” military maneuvers in the Black Sea and near the Russian borders. On January 10, 2022, the Russians and the Americans held tense talks in Geneva, then a few days later a meeting was held between Russian representatives and representatives of NATO, during which the representatives of the alliance rejected Moscow’s request that the alliance not include new members in the east into its ranks, and that troops or military equipment not be stationed in countries that It joined NATO after 1998, upsetting the strategic balance of power. On January 18, 2022, Moscow began deploying units of its army in Belarus, and it has since become clear that a solution to the Ukrainian crisis cannot take place without reaching a permanent political agreement that meets Russia’s interests.
And after Vladimir Putin’s speech on Monday evening, February 21, 2022, most members of the Security Council, which held an emergency meeting, condemned Russia’s recognition of the independence of the two separatist republics in eastern Ukraine, and President Joe Biden had issued, immediately after that speech, an executive order banning any investment or New exchange or financing by American persons for the pro-Russian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The next day, the United States imposed financial and economic sanctions on Russia, and French President Emmanuel Macron, in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Union, called on the EU countries to impose “targeted European sanctions” on them, and German Chancellor Olaf Schultz suspended work on the Russian gas pipeline “Nord Stream.” 2 ″, while British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that his country will impose a large package of sanctions on Russia.
Second: The strategic importance of Ukraine from the Russian perspective:
Olegbek Kazanov, associate professor at the University of World Economy and Diplomacy, Department of International Relations in Uzbekistan, confirmed that Ukraine has great strategic importance for Russia, given several important considerations, including:That many Russian weapons were produced by Ukrainian military factories, including the engines of Russian combat helicopters, as well as the engines of many Russian warships, in addition to that most of the Russian missile heads are launched through missiles that are produced, either partially or completely. In Ukrainian factories, and more than half of the components of intercontinental ballistic missiles are produced in Ukraine, and they can carry about 80% of Russian warheads. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the Yuzhmash complex in Ukraine, which is part of the strategic factories of the Soviet Union. Previously, the annual production capacity of this complex is 120 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Ukraine depends on Russia for its energy and fuel consumption, and it is noted that the sustainable development of Ukraine’s economy depends on importing energy resources, that is, oil and gas, primarily from abroad.
In addition, the Russian fleet was stationed at the Sevastopol Naval Base in Crimea, whose importance stems from the fact that controlling it means controlling the Black Sea and the areas bordering on it. Therefore, Russia has been keen, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, to keep its fleet in the Black Sea there, by By concluding agreements with successive Ukrainian governments (*), and accordingly Crimea enjoys geostrategic importance, and falls within the scope of Russian vital interests that cannot be waived, and perhaps this is what prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to annex the island to Russia.
In terms of ethnicity, the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine belong to Russia, and the Russians constitute approximately 17% of the population of Ukraine, which was reflected in the nature of the Russian identity. In addition to the foregoing, Ukraine is part of Russian history and memory, as it is considered a component of the Russian identity, in addition to being an essential strategic port for Russia’s vital interests. Ukraine also represents the cornerstone of Russian defenses, and is a natural extension of Russian industry and agriculture. Its importance also stems from As it gives Russia the ability to extend its political, military, and economic influence to the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the Black Sea, Ukraine also represents strategic importance for the Russian energy security system, as it represents the crossing point for Russian natural gas to Europe, and the link for most of the infrastructure of Russian industries. Whether via pipelines, roads, or railways.
The importance of the Russian accounts in the Ukrainian crisis, which has turned into a proxy war arena, stems from the concerns of NATO and the European Union expanding in its vital space, all the way to its immediate borders, and then besieging and putting pressure on it politically, economically and militarily.Because Russia sees NATO’s expansion to the east as an existential security threat to it, and Russia will never accept Ukraine’s accession to Western political, economic and military institutions, and asserts that this was a sufficient reason to wage war, to obtain Western guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO, and to stop the military escalation in the east. Ukraine, where Russia demands that Ukraine stop attempts to restore the areas controlled by the Russian-backed separatists in the Donbass region, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in the east of the country, and considers this a violation of the provisions of the “Minsk 1” protocols in 2014 and “Minsk 2” in 2015. , which were reached under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and provided for a form of autonomy in the two provinces.
Third: The strategic importance of Ukraine from the American perspective:
Ukraine, which became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, occupies a sensitive position between Russia and NATO members, and the American and European viewpoint is that the existence of a strong and independent Ukraine is an important part of building a “complete, free and secure Europe,” and requires the completion of Europe’s insurance operations – which have been accelerating since The nineties of the twentieth century by expanding the scope of NATO and the European Union – reducing Russia’s influence in European lands and its surroundings, and reaching the last possible point touching Russian lands by integrating Ukraine under the umbrella of economic and security partnership, thus enabling the West to tighten its control over the eastern gate to a large extent.
(Read more) How does the Ukrainian war affect global climate change?
The location of Ukraine represents a strategic and geopolitical axis of great importance, as Ukraine is of vital, vital, and geostrategic importance to the United States of America, which begins with besieging the Russian sphere of influence, just as Ukraine’s ports are important to NATO when it enters the Black Sea.
Russia and Ukraine also play an important role in exporting oil, natural gas, coal, wheat, and other commodities to the global market. Reports indicate that both countries produce 70% of the global neon, which is a vital commodity in the production of semiconductors, which caused a crisis for automakers that are already witnessing a scarcity of neon. Computer chips, and both countries are responsible for 13% of the global supply of titanium, which is used in the aircraft industry, as well as 30% of global palladium (palladium is in the platinum family of metals, and jewelry experts consider it an alternative to gold or platinum) and is used in the automotive industry. , and mobile phones, and this crisis will have negative economic effects not only on Russia and Ukraine, but also on the European Union and the United States of America, and among the most important expected effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine is the rise in inflation rates due to the increase in oil prices, the increase in food prices, and the rise in material prices raw all over the world.
In order to analyze the reasons for the movement of the West and Russia and their arrival in the current tense situation, it is possible to look closely at the current political map of the central region separating them and the reality of the competition for influence in it, as the following can be concluded:
1. Most of the large countries in Eastern and Central Europe, such as Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria, have today become full members of the European Union and NATO, and their Western affiliation has been consolidated after the interests of their peoples overlap economically, politically, and security within the Western Atlantic system, and Russia can no longer challenge The West is in these countries that form a geographical depth and a first line of defense for Western Europe.
2. There are only two countries left (Ukraine and Belarus) for the West to complete, by annexing, depriving Russia of its influence in the central region of Eastern Europe as a whole, and with the European Union concluding a partnership agreement with Ukraine in March 2014, it is thus seeking to extend its influence to the largest country in Eastern Europe in terms of area. It is the most populous, and the deepest geographically extending towards Russia, and it occupies more than half the length of the eastern gate, and thus it is considered the most important of its countries.
3. Consecrating the interests and influence of the West in Ukraine means, for Russia, extending its influence over the entire northern Black Sea, and on the Crimean peninsula of strategic and historical importance, with the presence of the West’s Turkish ally on the southern coast of this sea, Romania and Bulgaria on the western coast, and Georgia in part From the eastern coast, the Russian presence on the Black Sea will recede in part of the eastern coast only, and if the strategic benefit of the seas for the major country lies in the safe movement of its military fleets and easy access to its destinations, then the Black Sea will almost lose that benefit for Russia. If the West completes the full integration of Ukraine with its economic and security partnerships, including Crimea, perhaps this is what made Russia act with traditional armed behavior despite the negative repercussions it expects from the West’s reactions.
4. If the West’s efforts succeed in integrating Ukraine into the Western economic and security system, then only the Republic of Belarus will remain to serve as a separator between the West and Russia, but it will be surrounded in the north, south and west by the West and its allies, making it the only one loyal to Russia in the eastern gate of Europe.
Based on the foregoing, it can be said that if the process of integrating Ukraine into the entire Euro-Atlantic economic and security integration processes takes place, the West will have deprived Russia of the central region that used to give a strategic advantage to the Russian land force.
Fourth: Indicators of military strength in the Russian and Ukrainian armies:
The most important indicators of military strength in the Russian and Ukrainian armies can be monitored as follows:
1. The Russian army ranks second among the most powerful armies in the world, while its Ukrainian counterpart ranks twenty-second in the world.
2. The number of Russian army soldiers in service is 850 thousand, ranking fifth in the numerical strength of the armies of the world, in contrast, the number of Ukrainian army personnel reaches 200 thousand soldiers, ranking 20th in the world.
3. Russia’s defense budget is about $154 billion, ranking third among countries in the world in defense spending, while Ukraine’s defense budget is estimated at $11.9 billion, ranking 20th among countries in the world.
4. The Russian army has more than 4,173 warplanes, ranking second in the world among the world’s armies, while the Ukrainian army has only 3,188 warplanes, ranking 31st in the world.
5. The Russian army has 12,420 thousand tanks to lead the armies of the world, surpassing its Ukrainian counterpart, which has only 2,596 tanks and ranks 13th in the world.
6. The Russian fleet consists of 605 naval vessels, including 49 minesweepers, while the Ukrainian naval fleet includes only 38 naval units.
7. Russia has 1218 airports, while Ukraine has only 187 airports. The length of land roads in Russia is about 1.28 million km, while it does not exceed 170 thousand km for Ukraine.
From the analysis of indicators of military power between Russia and Ukraine, it becomes clear that there is a clear imbalance in the balance of military power in favor of Russia, and this is what the United States and its allies are aware of, who decided to support Ukraine in its war with Russia to achieve Western interests.
The second topic
American policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine
Since Russia mobilized its military forces on the border with Ukraine in October 2021, and then its military intervention in Ukrainian territory on February 24, 2022, the United States of America is facing a complex international crisis, which is one of the most difficult crises since the end of the Cold War, as the Russian military intervention in Ukraine is a challenge. This intervention has given the United States of America an exceptional opportunity to perpetuate a negative image of Russian President Putin as leading a rogue regime, and the United States of America aims to deter Russia’s long-term attempts to challenge American unilateralism.
Almost four months after the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, the Russian forces are still unable to achieve a fundamental breakthrough in the field, and although the Russian military strategy has shifted, since mid-April 2022, from its main goal of controlling the capital, Kyiv, And toppling the regime of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to focus on eastern Ukraine, specifically the Donbass region, its ground offensive is still facing strong resistance that hinders its progress, and it can be explained by the support provided by the United States of America and its allies to Ukraine, and in this regard the study raises important questions, including: What are the determinants of US policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war? What is the nature of Western support for Ukraine and what are its forms and manifestations? Which can be focused on in this section of the study.
First: Determinants of American Policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian War:
The administration of US President Joe Biden has identified a set of determinants that achieve strategic goals to protect American interests from the repercussions of this crisis, and they include the following:
1. Avoiding entering into a direct military confrontation with Russia: Washington, in its management of the Ukraine crisis, set a red line represented in not entering into a direct military confrontation with Russia for any reason related to the crisis. In this context, the White House has repeatedly emphasized that the United States will not send military forces. to Ukraine. And President Biden, in his speech on February 24, 2022, reaffirmed this, and said that his country would not send troops on the ground in Ukraine. But at the same time, Biden confirmed that the United States would intervene if an attack occurred against any country in the “NATO” alliance, and would activate its obligations under “Article 5” of the NATO Charter (*).
2. Attempting to deter Russian military intervention against Ukraine: Based on two main interests of Washington, the first is related to American interests in Europe and the negative repercussions that the scenario of Russian military intervention could have on these interests, and the second is related to the “Chinese determinant” in the crisis. There were assessments American that this military intervention will encourage Beijing to repeat the same scenario in Taiwan.
3. Ensuring global energy security: Russia is one of the largest oil and gas exporters to the European continent, and therefore any escalation or tension with it will affect global energy markets, and will also lead to a rise in oil prices, which will directly affect the American citizen in Inside, and on the American economy, which is suffering from an inflationary wave. In this sense, one of the American goals in managing the Ukraine crisis was to ensure global energy security and the flow of oil and gas. In this context, Washington has consulted with its allies, especially in the countries of the Middle East, to ensure work on finding alternatives to Russian oil and gas.
4. Preventing the fall of the central government in Kyiv: US intelligence assessments confirmed that part of Putin’s goals in his military move against Ukraine is to work to control the capital, Kyiv, to topple the regime of President “Vladimir Zelensky”, and to try to install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv, as part of From Russia’s vision of Ukraine, as it considers it part of Russia’s vital sphere.
5. Failure to respond to the Russian security guarantees plan: With the escalation of the severity and pace of the current crisis, Russia presented in December 2021 to the United States and European allies an initiative called “Russian security guarantees,” which is the governing basis for Moscow’s position in the crisis, and the main reason for its military move to control On parts of Ukraine.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published a draft of Russian proposals for security guarantees, which were sent to the US administration, which stipulate that the two parties must adhere to the following:
1. Not to participate, unilaterally or within military alliances or international organizations, in any measures that harm the security of one another and undermine the fundamental security interests of each other, with the need for any international military organizations or alliances in which they are members to abide by the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, and not to Using the territory of other countries to prepare or carry out a military attack on one of the other or take any other measures related to the fundamental security interests of each other.
2. The United States undertakes to prevent NATO from extending to the east and not to join countries from the former republics of the Soviet Union to the alliance, in addition to not establishing military bases in the former Soviet republics that do not belong to NATO, and using the infrastructure there to carry out any military activities and not to develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
3. The commitment of the two parties not to deploy forces and weapons, especially within the framework of international organizations and military alliances, in areas where the other side considers the proliferation of these weapons and forces as a threat to its security, with the exception of deployment within the territories of the two countries.
4. Refrain from conducting flights of heavy bombers designed to transport nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, and from deploying surface warships of any kind in areas outside their airspace and territorial waters, which are liable to strike targets in the territory of the other side, and to prevent the exercise of dangerous military activities on the show. The sea and the airspace above it, including determining the minimum distance for ships and warplanes to approach them.
5. Not to deploy medium and short-range missiles outside their borders and in those areas within their lands that these missiles would strike targets in the territory of the other party, and not to deploy nuclear weapons outside their borders, and to withdraw what we previously deployed from these weapons abroad, with the removal of all infrastructure infrastructure for the deployment of nuclear weapons outside their borders, and refraining from training military and civilian cadres from other countries that do not possess nuclear arsenals to use these weapons and from conducting exercises and maneuvers that simulate the scenario of launching nuclear strikes.
As a result of the United States not responding to these demands, after Russia requested an official written American response to it, the crisis escalated and Russia began its military operations in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and Russia thus put the United States in a dilemma in responding to the developments of the crisis in Ukraine, so what is the nature of the American response to Russian military intervention in Ukraine? What are the features and features of this response?
Second: Characteristics and features of the American policy towards the Ukrainian crisis:
The US administration has taken a set of steps to respond to the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, and to deal with the threats resulting from it. These steps included the following:
1. Providing political and military support to Ukraine:
In light of the “red line” set by the Biden administration not to get involved in a direct military confrontation with Russia, and not to send US military forces on the ground, the US administration has worked to provide other alternatives to support Kyiv, most notably the political mobilization of European allies, and continuous coordination with European and major countries. Others such as Canada and Japan, confirming many messages of support and solidarity with the government and people in Ukraine, sending an urgent shipment of modern weapons to Kyiv in late January 2022 to support the capabilities of the Ukrainian army, and also agreeing to NATO countries delivering anti-tank missiles and other American weapons. to Ukraine.
Based on the above, the United States of America and its allies provided great support to Ukraine on several levels as follows:
• In terms of intelligence: The United States shared sensitive intelligence information with Ukraine, which had an important impact in directing a number of painful blows to the Russian forces, hence the Russian accusation that the United States is directly involved in the war against it, which raises concerns about the possibility of a slide towards A military confrontation between the two nuclear countries, and although Russia maintains a huge strategic nuclear arsenal, capable of striking targets around the world, including the United States of America, the Russian military doctrine does not allow the use of nuclear weapons unless there is an existential threat to the state.
US intelligence has helped Ukraine locate and attack Russian military targets. The available information indicates that thanks to this intelligence, the Ukrainian forces have managed, so far, to kill 12 Russian generals, and to bomb and sink one of the most important pieces of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, the cruiser Moskva, in April 2022.
From the military point of view: The Biden administration kept its promise to make any Russian military action in Ukraine costly, through packages of military aid to the Ukrainians, and although Putin threatened at the virtual summit that brought them together, in December 2021 (*), that Washington and its allies would provide Military support to Ukraine, including advanced offensive weapons, should Russia invade it, the Russians apparently underestimated Biden’s words, and did not accurately appreciate the role these weapons would play on the battlefield. The large American and Western arming of the Ukrainian forces contributed to changing the balance of power on the ground, and this was accompanied by poor Russian military planning, weak logistical supply lines, the absence of air coverage for the invading ground forces, and the failure to secure advanced communication systems to ensure that they were not spied on, and all of this caused Inflicting heavy losses on the Russian forces.
(Read more) How did the Ukrainian war affect the role of the International Monetary Fund?
• Since the start of the invasion, the United States and its European and NATO allies, and outside them, such as South Korea and Japan, have provided billions of dollars in military aid, including light missile launchers, attack drones, Stinger and Javelin missiles, and radar and disruption systems. Communications and espionage, and it became clear from the statements of American officials that the goal of the United States in Ukraine is no longer confined to ensuring the defeat of Russia, but rather to weakening it “to the point where it cannot repeat its invasion of Ukraine.” According to the US Department of Defense, Washington provided Ukraine with nearly $450 million in military aid in 2021, and the volume of US military aid to Ukraine since 2014 has reached more than $2.5 billion.
• From the economic point of view: The United States and its European allies and others imposed a series of successive diplomatic, economic, banking, technological, military and technical sanctions against the Russian state institutions, banks and banks. The Russian energy sector, which represents the lifeblood of the state’s economy, was not spared these sanctions, which surprised the Kremlin, which bet on the European Union’s reluctance to impose them due to the dependence of many of its countries on oil and gas imports from Russia. However, Western sanctions went further, as they also included the symbols of government in Russia, in an effort to disrupt the structure of President Vladimir Putin’s regime from within. Indeed, those sanctions have succeeded in isolating Russia to a large extent globally, and have clearly exhausted the Russian economy, which ranks eleventh in the world, with a value of $1.7 trillion. The US administration believes that Russia is economically unable to bear the consequences of the full occupation of Ukraine.
2. Emphasis on the support of the “NATO” countries:
Given that the American strategic assessment of the current crisis divides it into two levels, the first is related to Ukraine, and the second is related to NATO and its countries, especially in the eastern wing of the alliance, the Biden administration has devoted part of its moves to confirm the support of the alliance. In this context, President Biden approved in February 2022 the deployment of 3,000 American soldiers in Poland, Germany and Romania, in a step to strengthen the “NATO” countries in Eastern Europe. He also agreed in the same month to send 7,000 soldiers to Germany. These moves, in addition to coordination and continuous communication with NATO, are mainly aimed at reassuring the allies, and sending a direct message that Washington will have a position if an attack occurs against any of the NATO countries.
3. Imposing Western sanctions on Russia:
In his attempt to deter Russia from taking military action against Ukraine, Biden threatened to impose “devastating” economic sanctions against Russia, provide military support to Ukraine, including advanced offensive weapons, and seek to isolate Moscow internationally. European Union, NATO, Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand, to punish Russia. Washington has been able to overcome the fears of some of its partners, whose interests may be severely affected as a result of imposing certain sanctions on Russia, especially with regard to preventing Russian banks from accessing the SWIFT system for banking transactions and international financial transfers.
and announcing measures to limit Russia’s ability to do business in dollars, euros, pounds sterling, or Japanese yen in an effort to restrict them in the global economic system. The United States also decided to ban Russian planes from American airspace, joining an increasing number of European countries that closed their airspace to Russia. The latter responded by taking a decision to suspend its airspace in front of 36 countries.
The sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies on Russia are as follows:
1. The United States and its allies imposed sanctions on one of the largest Russian banks, which plays a role in financing Russian infrastructure projects and the activities of the Ministry of Defense, in response to Moscow’s official recognition of the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk republics in eastern Ukraine and the movement of military equipment and forces into their territories.
2. Depriving Moscow of obtaining funding from American and European financial institutions. The new sanctions are designed with the aim of harming strategic sectors of the Russian economy, especially the technology sector, the military sector, and the space industries sector.
3. The US sanctions included the gas transmission line between Russia and Germany across the Baltic Sea, known as “Nord Stream 2”, after Germany announced its suspension.
4. Preventing the circulation of Russian sovereign debt in Western markets, in addition to imposing sanctions on wealthy Russians close to the Kremlin and their family members.
5. Imposing sanctions targeting the Russian President and his Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, thus making Putin the first head of a major country to be subject to such sanctions.
6. Isolating a number of Russian banks and banks from the SWIFT system for banking transactions and international financial transfers.
7. Limiting the ability of the Russian Central Bank to access its foreign currency reserves, estimated at $630 billion, in addition to imposing sanctions on the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund and one of its subsidiaries.
The foregoing confirms the Russian accusation that the United States of America is directly involved in the war, and is even leading and directing the war against it in Ukraine. His administration also fears that Moscow will use this information as a pretext for a response against Washington’s interests, which could lead to an escalation between the two parties that the Biden administration does not want.
Third: Consequences of the US policy supporting Ukraine:
Has the American and Western support for Ukraine achieved its goal? To answer this question, it can be said that the Russian military operation in Ukraine has backfired politically and on security for Russia’s interests, why? Because Russia had announced that one of the reasons for invading Ukraine was to prevent the latter from joining NATO, which Moscow sees as a threat to its national security on its southwestern borders. Putin even went so far as to stipulate that NATO withdraw its forces and weapons from a number of countries. Eastern Europe, the three Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, which were part of the Soviet Union, Finland and Sweden have officially announced, with American encouragement, that they seek to join NATO as soon as possible. This would expand Russia’s common borders with NATO from about 700 km now to more than 1900 km.
It can also be emphasized that the steps taken by the US administration in dealing with the crisis in Russia and Ukraine did not change the Russian position, and Washington’s moves did not succeed in deterring Moscow from its position. Four months ago, Russia was able to control more than 20% of the Ukrainian territory, or approximately the equivalent of 125,000 thousand km of Ukraine, and the military support that Washington provided and will provide to Ukraine will not affect the balance of power between the latter and Russia. Although the capabilities of the Ukrainian army have advanced since 2014, they remain limited in the face of the Russian forces. The Ukrainian forces may succeed in disrupting the progress of their Russian counterparts, but they will not succeed in stopping their progress.
In addition to the above, it can be emphasized that the effectiveness of sanctions is limited in the short and medium term, because the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies will have a negative impact on the Russian economy, but this effect will take time, and Moscow has made its estimates about the options for American action, and then prepared at least partially to absorb the impact of these sanctions. Regardless of the level of impact of the sanctions and their damage to the Russian economy, they did not force Moscow to change its position, because its strategic calculations regarding its interests and national security in Ukraine are greater than the calculations of economic losses.
Therefore, a lot of scientific writings confirm that the settlement of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict can be achieved by agreement between all concerned parties (Russia – Ukraine – the United States of America – NATO), provided that Ukraine is a neutral country in world politics, meaning that it does not make any formal alliances or cooperation A non-defensive military one with either side, and this will serve the American, Ukrainian and Russian goals and interests, and that any solutions to the current crisis that do not take the idea of Ukrainian neutrality into account will lead to failure, just as the United States’ insistence on NATO’s right to annex Ukraine actually threatens to re-ignite the war between USA and China.
The third topic
The repercussions of the Ukrainian crisis on NATO
The relations between NATO and Ukraine go back to the early 1990s, and since then the relations have developed into one of the most important NATO partnerships. Relations were also strengthened by the signing of the Charter of Special Partnership between Ukraine and NATO in 1997, the establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, and the opening of the NATO Information and Documentation Center in Kyiv in 1997.
NATO is one of the most important international actors directly concerned with the Ukrainian crisis, which some analysts classify as the most dangerous geopolitical conflict since World War II, and it will lead to global consequences much greater than the consequences of the September 11 attacks in the United States of America in 2001, for two main reasons: The first: represented by the fact that the Ukrainian crisis brought to the surface, in a clear way, the depth of the existing differences between Russia and NATO with regard to the policy of expansion, or the so-called “open door policy” that it pursues towards the republics of the former Soviet Union, the second:Represented by the privilege of Ukraine in its relations with NATO, since 1994, with the status of a strategic partner, which makes it eligible to become a full member within the alliance and accordingly benefit from the collective defense requirements stipulated in Chapter V of the Washington Treaty of 1949 establishing this alliance, and based on these two reasons, The Ukrainian crisis forced NATO to rethink what to do in light of the existence of a serious crisis with Russia that requires managing it in a new way that is not based on a return to the logic of the Cold War represented by the logic of strategic balance and the policy of deterrence.
First: The position of the NATO countries on the Russian military intervention in Ukraine:
The heads of state and government of the 30 NATO member states met on March 24, 2022 to discuss the alliance’s response to the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is considered the most serious threat to European and Atlantic security for decades. In this regard, a statement was issued by the NATO countries, stressing the following:
1. Condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while calling on President Putin to immediately stop this war and withdraw his military forces from Ukraine, and calling on Belarus to end its cooperation with Russia and immediately suspend military operations.
2. Calling on Russia to engage constructively in credible negotiations with Ukraine to achieve tangible results, starting with a permanent ceasefire and working immediately to withdraw all its forces from Ukrainian territory.
3. Full solidarity with the Ukrainian President Zelensky and the Government of Ukraine, and with the Ukrainian citizens who are defending their homeland, emphasizing the alliance’s firm support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders that extend into its territorial waters.
4. Ukraine’s right to self-defense under the UN Charter. With NATO continuing to provide assistance to Ukraine in areas such as cyber security and protection against threats of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear nature.
5. Russia’s actions contribute to destroying the foundations of international security and stability. And that the Allied countries imposed huge sanctions and exorbitant political costs on Russia in order to end this war.
6. Calling on all states, including the People’s Republic of China, to support an international order that includes the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain from supporting the Russian war effort in any way, and to cease any action that assists Russia in circumvent penalties.
7. Emphasizing commitment to the basic principles on which European and global security is based, including the principle that every country has the right to choose its own security arrangements without external interference, with an affirmation of commitment to NATO’s open-door policy under Article 10 of the Washington Treaty.
8. Commitment to take all necessary steps to protect the security of citizens in the Allied countries and to defend every inch of their lands. The commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is a solid and unwavering commitment from all the Allied countries.
9. Based on Russia’s actions, the Allies deployed elements of the NATO Response Force, placing 40,000 troops on the eastern edge of Allied territory, along with significant air and naval assets, under direct NATO command with the support of national deployments. for allies. On top of that, we are establishing four additional multinational combat groups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, while taking all measures and decisions to ensure security and defense for all allies in all areas, with the emphasis that these measures are preventive and not escalatory.
10. Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine represents a fundamental challenge to the values and norms that have brought security and prosperity to all on the European continent. President Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine is a strategic mistake, with dire consequences for Russia and the Russian people. We will remain united and determined to oppose Russian aggression, assist the government and people of Ukraine, and defend the security of all allies.
This statement reflects the nature of Russia’s tense relations with NATO, during the past few years, due to NATO’s tendency to expand to the east, the significant imbalance in the capabilities of Russia and NATO, the deterioration of the arms control system, as well as the development of NATO’s military infrastructure near the Russian borders, Russia also witnessed a real crisis when Brussels expelled eight diplomats accredited to the Russian diplomatic mission to NATO, accusing them of carrying out suspicious intelligence activities for Moscow, including espionage and assassinations, but the Russian response came quickly when Moscow suspended the work of its mission to the alliance and closed NATO offices. NATO in Moscow, closing the NATO’s military liaison and information offices in Moscow.
Second: NATO’s policies for the Russian military response in Ukraine:
NATO countries prepared for the Russian military intervention in Ukraine two months before it took place, after the deployment of Russian forces and the nature of the Russian military build-up near the Ukrainian borders, which the concerned Western military and intelligence circles estimated to be about 150,000 Russian soldiers, and huge equipment that is not sufficient for a limited military operation. The Russian military operation will be on the breadth of Ukraine.
Based on the foregoing, NATO countries, led by the United States and Britain in the first place, began to prepare to confront the Russian military operation in Ukraine, and in this regard they took a number of measures, including:
1. The NATO countries carried out large-scale training operations for Ukrainian military groups on anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and military equipment was transferred from NATO through Poland and Slovakia specifically into Ukraine in preparation for this process, and during the first three weeks of the military intervention, the transfer of the most advanced weapons continued In the world from NATO countries, the United States, Britain, France and Germany to the interior of Ukraine.
2. These weapons were the Javelin anti-tank and armor-piercing missile launchers (*), as well as the anti-tank launchers produced by Britain in cooperation with Sweden. It is the most advanced missile in the world, as it is capable of destroying the most powerful tanks. Other sources estimated that the number of anti-tank and armor missiles provided to Ukraine exceeded 30,000, in addition to Stinger anti-aircraft missiles (**). NATO countries were not satisfied with that, but provided the American Switchblade 30 and Switch Blade 60 drones. Which are called suicide drones (***).
3. In addition, there was great intelligence and military cooperation, as the military intelligence services of NATO, Britain and the United States monitored all Russian movements and carried out penetrations into military communication networks between Russian military units, which enabled the Ukrainian forces to launch some effective strikes. And the last one hit the cruiser Moskva, the most important Russian naval piece in the Black Sea. And the flow of weapons from NATO to Ukraine continued through the railways between Ukraine and neighboring countries, which Russia avoided striking, especially since it could cause great civilian losses for Ukrainians who seek refuge in neighboring countries.
NATO has greatly strengthened its defensive measures in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine, by deploying elements of the NATO’s response force, where there are currently 40,000 thousand soldiers in the vicinity of Ukraine under the direct direction of the NATO command, in addition to 130 allied combat aircraft. And 140 ships are present in the region, in addition to the deployment of American forces and equipment, such as Patriot missiles, and the number of American forces stationed in Europe has reached 100 thousand soldiers.
It is clear from the previous analysis that the goal of the United States of America, along with NATO countries, from these measures is to deplete Russian power by turning Ukraine into a model similar to Afghanistan, and reducing Russia’s ability to sell weapons, which is one of Russia’s main sources, in addition to weakening Russia as an ally of China, the rising power in the face of the United States. The United States, in addition to pushing Russia to abandon its dream of becoming a major country and to settle for being a middle power.
Here, the study raises important questions, including how did the support of the United States of America, the European Union, and NATO to Ukraine affect Russia? Did the measures taken in this regard contribute to changing the Russian military strategy?
Muhammad Mujahid al-Zayyat in his article entitled “Why did the Ukrainian war last so far?” Where a change occurred in the Russian military plan, instead of trying to change the regime in Ukraine and control the capital, Kyiv, Russia realized that there was a process of attrition being arranged by NATO and with advanced weapons to drain the Russian forces entering the capital, Kyiv, which prompted the military campaign. To a halt, then the features of changing the plan, retreating from advancing towards the capital, assembling forces, heading again to the east and south region, re-transferring ammunition and equipment and improving its tactical conditions to focus on the southern and eastern region, which includes, according to the strategic objective, control of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as the expulsion of Ukrainian forces that were concentrated in some areas of the region, besieging or destroying them, and then besieging the Mariupol region, the most important military port on the Black Sea in the Sea of Azov region, which is the main port
From here it can be said that the Russian doctrine has focused on escalating operations in the eastern region, given that the supply lines are close to Russian territory and are not exposed to Ukrainian strikes, and this plan succeeded in seizing Mariupol to become the first strategic city that was captured since the beginning of the military campaign until now. Also, controlling the Sea of Azov means ending the friction that existed between Russia and Ukraine in this sea, securing the Crimea region, and providing the land extension of the Crimean peninsula to Russia, all of which are gains that can increase the Russian political leadership after failing to achieve the main goals it was targeting. From regime change in Ukraine and access to the capital, as it did not find popular support for that.
In his study entitled “Tension between NATO and Russia: Putin Orders the Invasion of Ukraine,” published by the German Institute for Security and International Affairs, Wolfgang Richter emphasized that Russian President Putin’s decision to intervene militarily in Ukraine has destroyed opportunities for negotiated solutions, breached the European cooperative security system, and the Security Pact. In addition, Putin underestimated Ukraine’s determination to resist and the West’s support for it, and now he faces many challenges, the most important of which are: a more united Ukrainian state, a stronger and cohesive NATO, and military reinforcement. Unprecedented for NATO’s eastern flank, in addition, President Putin will have to contend with significant economic, financial and political isolation with serious long-term implications.
Third: The expected scenarios of the Russian-Ukrainian war:
Despite the great support that Ukraine has enjoyed since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, and despite Russia’s inability to fully control Ukraine, Russia is able to destabilize Ukraine and impede its integration into Euro-Atlantic frameworks. After the Russian-Ukrainian war has passed its fourth month, the following are five possible scenarios for this war, and one does not exclude the other, but all of them fall within the limits of expected possibilities:
1. The scenario of a war of attrition: the war may last for months, if not years, during which the Russian and Ukrainian forces will wage a long war of attrition, in which neither side wants to surrender. Russian President Putin believes that he can win the war by showing strategic patience and betting that Western countries will feel “Ukraine’s exhaustion” and focus more on its economic crises and the Chinese threat, but the West continues its determination and continues to supply Ukraine with weapons, and almost fixed battle lines arise and the war turns to a permanent conflict at a reduced pace and become a “war forever”.
What if President Putin surprised the world with a unilateral ceasefire? He can settle for his territorial gains and declare “victory,” he can claim his “military operation” is complete, the Russian-backed separatists in the Donbass protected, he established a land corridor to Crimea, and he can then seek a moral stand. And pressure on Ukraine to stop the fighting. This scenario can be resorted to by Russia at any time, if it wants to benefit from European pressure on Ukraine to concede and give up some of its lands in exchange for peace. However, the United States, the United Kingdom and a large part of Eastern European countries will oppose this approach. Where the politicians of these countries believe that the Russian invasion must fail for the sake of Ukraine and the international order, so any unilateral ceasefire by Russia may change the justifications for the war, but it will not end the fighting.
3. The scenario of completing the political settlement and sharing interests: In addition, there is an expected scenario, which is the political settlement. What if Ukraine and Russia realize that they cannot achieve more militarily and enter into talks in order to reach a political settlement? What if the leadership decides to In Kyiv, after becoming unsure of continued Western support, the time has come to talk with the Russians? He notes that any political settlement will be difficult, not least because of Ukraine’s lack of confidence in Russia. Any peace agreement may not hold and more fighting could ensue.
4. Ukraine’s victory scenario: This scenario means Ukraine’s integration into the Western bloc. Can Ukraine defy all expectations and achieve something closer to victory? Can Ukraine force the Russian forces to withdraw to the positions they were deployed in before the invasion? And what if Russia fails to seize all of Donbass and suffers more losses? In addition to Western sanctions that deal a blow to the Russian war machine, Ukraine also launches counterattacks using the new missile launchers it has obtained and seizes the lands located in the lines of concentration of Russian forces and through which lines pass. supply it. Ukraine succeeds in transforming its army from a defensive force into an offensive force, but this scenario is unlikely given that Putin will not accept a conventional military defeat, especially if he has a nuclear option.
5. Russia’s victory scenario: What if Russia achieves a potential “victory”? Where Russia is still planning to seize the capital, Kyiv, and impose its hegemony over much of the territory of Ukraine, and Russia can benefit from its gains in the Donbass and liberate the forces, and the Ukrainian president has confirmed that Russia has already controlled 20% of the Ukrainian lands.
Despite the realism of the proposed scenarios for the future of the crisis, the researcher adds to the previous scenarios another scenario, which is the scenario of dividing Ukraine into two parts, after Ukraine turned into a proxy war arena between Russia and the West, and in light of the current military escalation, it can be said that it is possible to split Ukraine is divided into two countries, Qatar in the east follows Russia, and Qatar in the west follows Europe and the United States of America.
Conclusion of the study:
The study dealt with, through its three topics, “the dimensions of the Ukrainian crisis and its developments,” “the American policy towards the Russian military intervention in Ukraine,” and “the repercussions of the Ukrainian crisis on NATO.” The study answered the research questions it raised in the general framework of the study. From the results, the most important ones can be explained as follows:
1. Russia cannot back down in Ukraine or leave it to become part of the European Union or NATO, as in addition to the historical Russian national feelings towards it, and geopolitically considering it a “distinguished area of interests”, it is located in its immediate vicinity, and constitutes a huge area of about 603 Thousands of square kilometers, and it consists of a large human mass numbering about 44 million people, which makes it the vast and last strategic fortress that isolates Russia from the West and its allies, and with Crimea being considered part of Russia after its annexation, it is not conceivable that it will abandon it, especially since it is It wants to ensure a permanent presence of its fleet in the Middle Sea without a joint agreement with Ukraine.
2. The West cannot back down in Ukraine, because that might send a negative message to its other allies in Eastern Europe that it is unreliable and unreliable if they are also threatened by Russia, especially if it regains its former regional and international power.
3. Moscow will not stop military operations in Ukraine until it obtains clear pledges that NATO will not undertake new expansions on its borders, and Russia seeks in the short term to extract the largest possible concessions from Ukraine, such as the resignation of its president and government, the disarmament of its army, and its choice of neutrality. .
4. The Russian war dragged on for several reasons, the most important of which was the success of the NATO forces, the United States and Britain in particular in preparing for that war and arranging the process of depleting the Russian forces, and the Russian forces noticed that recently after about a month had passed, so they re-changed their strategy for that operation and began to focus on the south and east as a target The main and only one at the moment.
5. Russia did not achieve its military objectives, which it hoped for at the beginning of the military operation, except for the agreement that Ukraine would not join NATO at the present time and that it would not possess nuclear weapons. However, one of the unexpected results of the military operation was that it restored the cohesion of NATO in an unprecedented manner. The French President had stated before the start of such operations that NATO was suffering from a brain crisis, but it is now more cohesive.
6. The military operation, in its side effects, also prompted further arming of European countries, especially Germany, which increased its funds for armaments, and the alliance expanded militarily in the countries neighboring Russia in an unprecedented manner through the stationing of American and NATO forces in these countries, and more than that pushed Countries that were neutral, such as Finland and Sweden, had to formally apply to join NATO, which means developments not in favor of Russia.
7. The economic sanctions imposed against Russia will not deter it from its goals that it aspires to achieve through military intervention in Ukraine, and even if these sanctions will harm Russia’s economy in a relative way, it can circumvent the sanctions, or impose counter-sanctions that harm the European economy.
8. Russia is still the party that controls the equation of military engagement in Ukraine, despite the challenges it faces that may escalate with the protracted war in Ukraine. Ukraine will also remain a pivot among several axes in a path that will extend in the future in the battle of defense arrangements and policies between Russia and the powers. western.
9. There is a gap between the goals and the US response to the Ukrainian crisis, which reflects a “strategic dilemma” for the Biden administration. The latter succeeded in achieving some of its goals, especially those related to supporting Ukraine politically and militarily and supporting the “NATO” alliance, and it is also possible to achieve the goal of securing energy security, but it failed. In preventing Russian military intervention against Ukraine. And with the possibility of continuing Russian military operations inside Ukraine, Ukraine will be under Russian control, and then we will return to square one, which is Russian security guarantees, perhaps negotiated directly between Moscow and Kiev, or between Moscow and the United States and its European allies.
10. That the settlement of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict can be achieved by agreement between all concerned parties (Russia – Ukraine – USA – NATO), provided that Ukraine is a neutral country in world politics, meaning that it does not make any formal alliances or non-defense military cooperation with any On both sides, this will serve the American, Ukrainian and Russian goals and interests, and that any solutions to the current crisis that do not take into account the idea of Ukrainian neutrality will lead to failure, just as the United States’ insistence on NATO’s right to annex Ukraine actually threatens to re-ignite the war between the United States of America and China.
