After a long military buildup, Russian recognition of the unilaterally declared Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, and entry of the Russian Armed Forces into the Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine on February 21, 2022, the Russian forces launched a military campaign against Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Kyiv and other cities around Ukraine were bombed on February 24 after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a military action to “disarm and de-Nazify Ukraine” in a speech. The purpose of this research is to shed light on why Russia and Ukraine are at odds and how NATO has played a part in fueling this old war. Since Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, this study gives some context for understanding both Russia and Ukraine. In order to better comprehend the nature of the conflict, this study employs a descriptive analytical approach based on narrative and connections between data points.
TopIntroduction
In a dramatic escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that broke out in 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. It was made quite obvious that Kiev would meet its fate as a result of the European approach, which included a British proposition made from a podium in Washington. Amid a lack of clear positions and decisive decisions, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy famously declared on the afternoon of the invasion, “We are alone defending our nation.” Most of the Western community sympathized with Ukraine at the beginning of the war, but, contrary to what is believed, North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s forces did not move to enter the war to support the Ukrainian forces, but huge budgets were allocated to support Ukraine financially and militarily, as well as political and media support through the huge campaigns supporting it (Szporluk, 2020).
Although globalization has been occurring for millennia, the rise of International Organizations can be considered a more modern phenomenon. There was a strong and widespread desire for peace among nations after the devastation of World War II, and many international organizations were established as a result. These included the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the World Bank, among others. Almost any conceivable topic is covered by one of the many international organizations currently in operation.
The two primary schools of thought in international relations, realism and liberalism, have had a contentious history of disagreement about IOs. In an anarchic world, where there is no global government, realists claim that nations, the primary actors in international affairs, are primarily motivated by their own self-interest and concern for power and security. That's why they stress the importance of states exercising caution and moderation. On the other hand, liberals tend to hold a brighter vision of humanity, which they defend as inherently good. They have faith that global prosperity, peace, and stability can be achieved via concerted international effort. Realists have been much more wary about the potential benefits of IO proliferation than liberals (Fedor et al., 2017).
Those Western politicians in power frequently adhere to liberal orthodoxy and encourage the spread and extension of IOs, making this topic important in the area of governance. However, the stabilizing effect of these institutions should not be assumed. If you want to know if IOs provide peace, democratization, and stability to global politics and inter-state interactions, look no further than the case of NATO enlargement. Policymakers should exercise caution before adopting liberal policies, and the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and that of 2022 is a telling case study of the risks expansion sometimes involves (Abbassi et al., 2022).
The original purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was to restrain Soviet aggression and shield Western Europe against communist expansion. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Atlantic Alliance “lost its reason for being”. NATO not only made it through the end of the Cold War, but expanded in size, influence, and membership as a result of having “managed to adapt itself to a profoundly altered environment”. Some academics, typically those with a liberal worldview, have seen this as a good thing, a win for the West, and a thriving example of global cooperation. However, realists, who tend to be more skeptical of international organizations, see NATO's expansionism as dangerous and frightening, claiming the alliance is a major contributor to tensions between the East and West, and notably between Russia and the West (Feklyunina, 2016).
Two issues, the expansion of NATO and the recognition of Russia's special interest in the countries of the former Soviet Union, “caused the greatest tension and have the most potential to continue,” as they have, “to upset U.S.-Russian relations” beginning in 1994, during what Victor Israelyan calls the cold peace. Scholars continue to debate what the future of NATO should be, whether or not it should seek growth, and whether or not it should even exist at all (Kovacevic, 2009). It is possible to tell which of these two perspectives is more correct, or at least more pertinent in the present political situation, by looking at Russia's interests in the former Soviet bloc and its reactions to NATO's expansionist policies and activities in Eastern Europe.