Category: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Introduction

The Russia-Ukrainian war sparked global tension back in 2014 after the Ukrainian revolution to restore its dignity and establish a nation that is free from external influences. However, Russia’s President waged a full-scale invasion into the neighboring nation earlier this year, by ordering massive attacks on civilian settlements, military bases, and government establishments (Hookway & Trofimov, 2022). Thus, this essay argues that the military attacks currently being executed in Ukraine are unjustified because Ukraine is a less powerful nation than Russia, meaning that it can hardly defend itself. Additionally, the attacks are against moral human values as several civilians have been killed in the bombings or executed by Russia’s military. Moreover, the war has interfered with the global economy and the stability of Europe as Russia’s President has threatened any nation that tries to interfere with his plans and deter his ambitions.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustified because Ukraine is a less powerful nation than its aggressor. Thus, it does not have the resources to sustain itself and defend its civilians against Russia. Currently, Ukraine is experiencing financial and humanitarian as all processes in the nation are at a standstill. Since the invasion, the living status of individuals in Russia has deteriorated as most of them have been forced to flee from their residents (Elsherbiny, 2022). The Wall Street Journal reports that military attacks on cities and town centers have left more than four million people homeless, forcing them to seek shelter in the neighboring countries as refugees (Hookway & Trofimov, 2022). Subsequently, no one in Ukraine is safe, especially the top government officials because Russia perceives them as their main targets. In a public briefing, President Volodymyr Zelensky stated, “Our enemy has chosen me as their number one target and my family number two, but we will not yield (Hookway & Trofimov, 2022).” In other words, Russia plans to invade Ukraine until it overthrows its government by executing the nation’s president and all members of the first family, regardless of the crisis. Consequently, the situation has escalated into a disaster as the country has become a wasteland.

Additionally, the attack on Ukraine is not justified because the military is killing innocent individuals, which goes against the principles of human co-existence. At first, Russian troops advanced toward Ukraine’s capital but did not interfere with settlement areas (Papanikos, 2022). Instead, they captured Ukrainian soldiers and set barriers around regions like Mariupol and Kreminna to prevent the movement of individuals in and out. The Russian army has changed its tactics as they are harming civilians, raping women, and executing innocent individuals (Hookway & Trofimov, 2022). Over the past few weeks, the Human Rights Watch has reported several cases of the Russian military going against war laws. According to the reports, “there have been several continuous attacks on civilians living in Kharkiv, Chernihiv, and Kyiv” (Bhuiyan et al., 2022). However, the latest news received from the region is heartbreaking as Ukrainian officials have shared information about catastrophic events at Mariupol. After weeks of being bombarded, satellite images showed mass graves, estimated to accommodate close to 9000 individuals from a nearby village (NBC News, 2022). Thus, atrocities being carried out by the Russian President and his military are uncalled for and against basic human rights.

The Russian Ukrainian conflict has interfered with the political stability of countries in Europe and the world since the Russian President has threatened any nation that tries to interfere with his initiatives. Several powerful leaders all over the globe have urged the Russian President to withdraw his troops from Ukraine and resolve their conflicts using democratic means (Lava et al., 2022). Additionally, they have offered assistance in several ways, including providing food supplies, medicines, and resources to allow individuals to survive. However, the pressure keeps building on neighboring nations and powerful countries like the US since they have neglected the issue for a long time as Russian military keep slaughtering innocent Ukrainian citizens. A majority of individuals believe that the war against Ukraine is wrong while others associate it with genocide (Rosenberg & Santora, 2022). However, many people hold that the US government and President Biden have not done enough to help Ukrainians protect themselves. Recently, President Biden announced that “the US government will spend about $1.3 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine” (Rosenberg & Santora, 2022, April 22). Unfortunately, though beneficial, this equipment cannot alleviate the suffering of individuals in the war zone.

Counterargument

Some individuals suggest that Russia should continue its invasion and take control of Ukraine because it has an unstable political environment, characterized by waves of violence. Although members of the NATO alliance have condemned its move against Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has supporters since some extremists suggest that the war can result in some benefits (Lava et al., 2022). For example, the leader of Belarus, which borders Ukraine and Russia to the Eastern side, supports this invasion citing that “Ukraine is a nation that inhibits the region’s development”. When President Vladimir Putin launched his attack on Ukraine, he suggested that he aimed to drive the Nazis out of Ukraine and reduce violence in the country since it posed a threat to Russia’s development and its existence. However, he has done the exact opposite as he has pushed people out of their homes, destabilized the Ukrainian government, and facilitated the inhuman execution of thousands of individuals living in Ukraine (Elsherbiny, 2022). Moreover, these attacks have contributed to political instability that risks the positive development of future generations. Nonetheless, most individuals believe that the US and others should stand up against Ukraine to fight for human rights and global democracy.

Conclusion

Although the President of Ukraine and his supporters in Belarus claim that the war is necessary due to the increased Nazi influence in Ukraine, thus posing risks to their development, their allegations cannot be substantiated. However, there are several media resources shedding light on the events happening in Ukraine. According to these resources, Ukrainians are suffering because their living conditions continue deteriorating. In addition to their plight, they lack the resources to defend themselves and their property from destruction. Moreover, the war has disrupted several activities in Europe that affecting the continent economically and politically due to increased instability. Lastly, Ukraine is a small country that cannot threaten the existence of Russia. Hence, the military attacks on Ukraine and the ongoing war are unjustified, because it has facilitated unnecessary suffering. As a result, powerful nations like the US should not just sit on the fence as they watch events unfold. Instead, they should equip Ukrainians with advanced weapons to drive out Russians or collectively send their troops to deal with the issue once and for all.

References

Bhuiyan, J., Walters, J., Chao-Fong, L., Belam, M., Lock, S., Bhuiyan, J., Walters, J., Chao-Fong,

L., Belam, M., & Lock, S. (2022). Russia-Ukraine war latest: Russia still bombing Azovstal steelworks, Ukraine says; UN secretary general to meet Putin â live. The Guardian. Web.

Elsherbiny, A. (2022). Europe on Fire: the Russo-Ukrainian War, Its Causes and Consequences. Its Causes and Consequences.

Hookway, J., & Trofimov, Y. (2022). What Is Happening in Ukraine and Why Is Russia Invading? WSJ. Web.

Lava, S. A., de Luca, D., Milani, G. P., Leroy, P., Ritz, N., & de Winter, P. (2022). Please stop the Russian-Ukrainian war–children will be more than grateful. European Journal of Pediatrics, 1-3.

NBC News. (2022). Up to 9,000 feared to be in mass grave near Mariupol. Web.

Papanikos, G. T. (2022). The Greek Newspaper Coverage of the Ukrainian War: The Pre-Invasion Phase and the Day of the Invasion. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications.

Rosenberg, M., & Santora, M. (2022). Latest Mariupol and Ukraine-Russia War News: Live Updates. The New York Times. Web.

Players and Stakeholders

The major players and stakeholders in the current Ukraine crisis are the residents of Russia and Ukraine. The secondary players and stakeholders are the residents of the following countries: 1) the United States of America; 2) Bulgaria; 3) Romania; 4) Poland; 5) Germany, and 6) France. These countries are included in the list because the events that transpired in the region since February of 2014 had an indirect effect on the economy and political governments.

The United States, as the perceived leader in the creation of international policies, wanted a stable Europe. Neighboring countries, on the other hand, are mindful of the economic and political consequences of Russia’s decision to annex Crimea.

Interdependency

The United States government continues to experienced relative levels of success in applying the “containment” policy towards Russia (Rose, 2014). Since the days of the Cold War, the U.S. is wary of Russia’s desire to extend its territories (Rose, 2014). It is to the best interest of the United States to support Ukraine to contain Russia’s military expansion. However, the U.S. has to acknowledge the importance of Russia when it comes to stabilizing the supply and prices of oil.

On the other hand, Ukraine cannot afford to burn bridges with Russia. Ukraine profits from its economic relations with Russia. In the same manner, Russia understands the strategic value of Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine must work together. In the business relationship between these two countries, it is Ukraine that will benefit the most. Ukraine is the transit point for significant amounts of Russian petroleum products. The same thing can be said of neighboring countries.

Elimination of Options

Trouble started when the Ukrainian people demanded closer ties to the European Union and the resignation of former President Victor Yanukovych (Dolzhenkov, 2014). Russia exploited the tense political situation by seizing Crimea. Thus, the first option that comes to mind is to deal with the situation with the use of force.

Russia used force to annex Crimea, and made it one of the territories under the control of the Russian government. The first option is to retake Crimea. The second option is to declare war with Russia to project strength and to push back Russian military forces outside Ukraine’s territories.

The use of force and the use of arms is not the best option to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. The country’s armed forces are no match against the well-equipped Russian military power.

To foresee the consequences of a head-to-head battle with Ukraine and Russia, one only has to revisit the events leading to the capture of Crimea. Russian military forces and Russian military hardware were used to carry out the annexation of foreign territory. The mission was accomplished with very little resistance from Ukraine. Therefore, it is not practical to retake Crimea by force.

The second option is to persuade NATO to intervene. This is not a practical solution because it will lead to a full-blown war in the region. To understand the folly of this suggestion, one only has to revisit NATO’s intervention strategies in countries like Serbia and Sierra Leone (Carpenter, 2000). NATO’s officials will quickly realize that Russia is not comparable to Serbia. Russia has the resources to fight back. The ensuing conflict will lead to the horrendous loss of lives.

It is not only Russia’s military might that will discourage a military solution to the present crisis in Ukraine. The most problematic aspect is the possibility of forcing Russia’s allies to join the conflict. Russia’s perceived allies are: 1) China; 2) North Korea; and 3) Iran (Wilson, 2014). It is horrifying to envision a military conflict that includes these three countries. Although the loss of life and property is the main deterrent for military action, the secondary reason is the fear of disrupting the flow of crude oil from Russia to European markets.

Military intervention may not be the appropriate response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. However, it is also foolish not to do anything. Russia wanted to create more breathing room in a political situation that can be described as claustrophobic after the fall of the Union Soviet Socialist Republic (Rose, 2014).

Russia wanted to establish a buffer zone between Russian territories and those that are under the influence of NATO. This is the reason why Russia was compelled to grab Crimea from Ukraine. Russia annexed the province when the Ukrainian government was at its weakest state. Russia was successful in grabbing Crimea. The relative ease of annexing foreign territory may encourage Russia to grab more land.

One of the promising solutions to the crisis is the application of a well-developed economic embargo against Russia. Economic sanctions can force a stubborn leader to give up its hardline stance for the sake of his people. The only problem with an economic embargo is that the products are not coming into Russia.

The prized commodity that the European markets needed is coming from Russia. Without a doubt, the Russian economy will suffer if vital imports are not allowed to enter Mother Russia. However, the inability to purchase Russian oil will hurt countries that are members of the NATO alliance. It is therefore important to exhaust other forms of diplomatic solutions to the said political crisis.

Issues and Limitations

An economic embargo will negatively affect the Russian economy. But at the same time, it will hurt the Ukrainian economy. It is almost impossible to fully map out the consequences of an economic embargo on Russia. It is also difficult to predict how Russia will retaliate.

It is interesting to know how Russia perceived its current status after it successfully annexed Crimea into the fold of the Russian government. The free world condemned its actions (Birnbaum, 2014). But this does not mean that President Putin feels threatened or ashamed as a result of the decisions he made.

It is also difficult to speculate what will happen to neighboring countries, especially the European countries dependent on Russian gas and oil. If Russia retaliates by cutting off the supply and oil, these countries may experience economic recessions that will lead to high unemployment rates. It may cause political and economic instability that is far greater than the current crisis.

A diplomatic solution is needed. However, the Western mind may find it difficult to understand the Russian mindset. The greatest worry in crafting counter-strategies and potential solutions to the crisis is the fear of creating something that will make things worse. The history of the Cold War provided enough evidence of how the American government misjudged the intentions of the Russian leaders. The same thing can be said about Russia’s failure to comprehend the context of the American strategy.

A soft stance can also backfire. Consider the following report coming from the heart of Russia: “Newspapers and television and radio stations have been shutdown or taken over by the government and its allies. Kremlin cronies have replaced elected regional governors, and Russia’s parliament has been emasculated as part of the Kremlin’s drive to monopolize all state power” (Rose, 2014, p.20). It is important to send a strong message to the Russians.

Recommendation

The negotiating team must focus on the symbiotic relationship between Russia and Ukraine when it comes to dependence on revenue coming from the sale of petroleum products. Russia needs the help of its neighbor to sell petroleum products to countries that are situated west of Ukraine (Pifer, 2009).

Russia must never use petroleum resources to blackmail Ukraine into submission. Russian leaders are aware of the fact that Ukraine’s bitter winter will make people desperate for Russian oil and gas. However, if they use heavy-handed tactics, a full-blown war may ensue. It is to the best interest of Russia to continually supply petroleum products to Ukraine.

The entry of NATO and the United States to the escalating political crisis may cloud this fundamental economic issue (Pifer, 2009). However, it must be made clear that this economic situation will not change in the next few years. The petroleum business provides a lot of common ground to facilitate communication between the two countries.

President Putin makes controversial decisions with a lot of confidence because he enjoys a high approval rating. Nonetheless, a great leader must realize that his approval ratings will go down as soon as economic conditions within Russia continues to decline. President Putin understands the impact of economic depression to his presidency.

He is familiar with the events of the 20^th century to realize that he does not have an eternal claim to the Russian presidency. The Russians will boot him out of office if he does not have a concrete strategy to counteract the economic embargo that NATO and the United States government will impose on Russia. Therefore, it is to the best interest of Russia not to burn bridges with Ukraine. The communication lines must stay open.

NATO and the United States government must work behind the scenes to support Ukraine’s desire to build a stable, independent, and democratic society (Pifer, 2009). Also, NATO and the United States government must work feverishly to integrate Ukraine into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions (Pifer, 2009). Although Ukraine needs Russia, the Ukrainian government must never become dependent on Russian business.

NATO and the United States must send a strong message through the implementation of a well-crafted economic embargo. President Putin’s greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. His high approval rating among his constituents is his kryptonite so-to-speak. Several Russian leaders in the past were booted out because they had no practical solution to unemployment and other problems related to the economic recession.

The United States government must never project a soft stance in dealing with the shrewd Russian President. However, it is prudent to send negotiators and analysts who will attempt to understand the thinking process of Russian leaders. History is filled with stories of wrong assumptions. Leaders in the past made wrong decisions based on faulty information. These wrong decisions did not only cause economic recessions.

The poorly crafted strategies resulted in the severe loss of life and property. It is important to gather pertinent information before crafting an appropriate policy focused on resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Diplomatic solutions must be exhausted before considering a military strike against the Russians. It is foolish to engage the Russian army in a full-blown war. Even the revival of the Cold War is unthinkable.

References

Birnbaum, M. (2014). Eight months after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, a complicated transition.The Washington Post.

Carpenter, T. (2000). NATO’s empty victory: A postmortem on war. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.

Dolzhenkov, S. (2014). Ukraine: Chronology of coverage. The New York Times. Web.

Pifer, S. (2009). Averting crisis in Ukraine. New York: Council of Foreign Relations.

Rose, G. (2014). Crisis in Ukraine. New York: Foreign Affairs.

Wilson, A. (2014). Ukraine crisis: What it means for the west. UK: Hobbs the Printers.

The huge political crisis that erupted in one of the European countries in 2014 shook the world and affected a great deal of countries and people. Currently, the conflict has been going on for over a year and resulted in a variety of tragic events, numerous casualties among the civilians, an ultimate division within the Ukrainian nation and a major political and geopolitical confrontation between Ukraine, the European Union, the United States, and Russian Federation. During the conflict, Ukraine has lost a part of its territory that was annexed by the Russian Federation and a large portion of Eastern Ukraine remains under the control of pro-Russian separatists and rebels. Many different perspectives on the armed conflict are tearing Ukraine apart at the moment and there are more than two sides involved. Causes of the crisis are also multiple and date several decades back. This paper provides an evaluation of the Ukraine-Russian crisis and argues that the conflict that emerged was inevitable due to the weak statehood of Ukraine and its significant national, regional and cultural division that has been growing over the past decade.

Conflict Description

The first protests began in Kyiv at the end of 2014 when President Yanukovych and his government made an official decision to stop the preparations to sign the association with the European Union (EU) (Manni, 2014). The protestors gathered in the main square of the Ukrainian capital city to express their dissatisfaction with the political course chosen by the President. The protest led by some of the opposition politicians escalated very quickly and soon the number of the dissatisfied people included a hundred thousand (Manni, 2014). Protest escalation brought violence, riots, destruction of private properties, fires, occupation of buildings. The president unable to cope with the chaos fled the country. The wave of protests moved to other cities, city halls were occupied, local authorities – overthrown. The only regions safe from government overthrowing were the East of Ukraine and the Crimea that recognized Yanukovych as their leader (McLaughlin, 2014). When in Kyiv the protestors and politicians who led them assigned a new government consisting mainly of the members of the former political opposition – the East and the Crimea reacted following the footsteps of Kyiv protesters – local authorities were overthrown not to let the new self-assigned power penetrate the regions.

Crimea quickly found the support of the Russian Federation, conducted a referendum and based on its decision stopped being a part of Ukraine. The Eastern areas initiated their referendum which found no recognition due to the lack of autonomy in the region. The rest of Ukraine held presidential elections and assigned a new President Poroshenko who was at power to stop the armed conflict and start a diplomatic dialog with the leaders of the rebellious territories, but instead, he announced a “war on terrorism” and engaged a powerful armed conflict which resulted in hundreds of deaths of civilian people. The clash is still going on, the dialog between Kyiv and the East of Ukraine is going on but it brings no resolution. While the conflict has the character of civil war, in Ukraine it is presented as the struggle against Russian aggression. The mass media of the world also emphasize that the evil genius behind it all is President Putin who is said not only to support the rebels in the east of Ukraine but also to secretly send his troops to assist and also to sell the weapons to the Ukrainian separatists, his purpose is believed to be the creation of Eurasian Union composed of the former Soviet countries (Liddy, 2015; Gonzalez, 2015; Saunders, 2014).

Sides and Perspectives

From the description, it is obvious that the evaluation of the conflict in Ukraine is difficult due to the presence of multiple sides to it. The identification of all the key players is complicated by the powerful propaganda as information war is one of the dimensions of this conflict. The sources that try to stay unbiased count “two sets of corrupt oligarchs, two sets of disillusioned and frightened common folk, and unfortunately powerful fringe and two main external groups involved in the conflict” (Understanding All Sides To The Conflict In Ukraine, 2014). The Ukrainian oligarchs are divided into those who support orientation to the EU, and those who want to be closer to Russia. The common folk have the same division, but it is complicated by multiple subcategories such as ultra-nationalists, militant separatists, and intellectuals. All of them are united by the same goal – the end of corruption and an ultimate democratic state – but they look for it referring to different sources. The external powers involved include Russian Federation and what is referred to as “the West” (the United States and the EU namely). The Western powers intend to promote democracy, President Putin views the conflict as a violation of the rights of the population of the East of Ukraine and compares the revolutionary overthrowing of the legitimate President to Russian Revolution of 1917 (Yakovenko, 2014). Each of the external participants of the conflict is under the impression that their values are threatened.

Background and Causes

Among the main causes of the present civil conflict in Ukraine is its national, cultural and regional division. Ethnically, based on the data of 2001 the percentage of Russian descendants in the East of Ukraine reaches 30-40%, in Crimea, it is above 45%, whereas in the West of the country is it less than 5% (McLaughlin, 2014). The West has always been oriented towards Europe, while the East looked up to Russia as to a “big sister” (Kravchenko, 2014). Some of the experts trace the Ukraine-Russian conflict back to the end of the Soviet Union when Ukraine declared its independence for the first time (Rozin, 2014). Regardless of the independence, Ukraine and Russia continued to have very tight political and economic connections. Yanukovich’s suspension of the development of the association with the EU was influenced mainly by Russia’s opposition to the “Eastern Partnership” of the EU directed at Ukraine (Ahmed, Botelho & Gumuchian, 2014). Besides, it is important to remember that political division in Ukraine also has territorial character – the East has always been supportive of Yanukovych, while the West preferred his opposition. The previous massive domestic conflict based on political preferences and division in Ukraine happened in 2004, it is known as Orange Revolution during which the protests against Yanukovych in Kyiv resulted in re-elections (Manni, 2014).

Evaluation

Currently, pro-Russian elements are still in control over territories and buildings in several Eastern Ukrainian towns. The government of Ukraine keeps sending the troops to take back these territories. The United States keeps blaming Russia for disguised participation in the conflict forcing more sanctions as Putin mentions that Russia might have to take action to protect the civil population of Eastern Ukraine trapped in the middle of an armed conflict. Sanctions involve the participation of the EU and its economic confrontation with Russia (Marcus, 2014). The world’s community starts to fear a bigger armed conflict, which is not a predetermined inevitability. At the same time, the conflict affecting Ukraine has been inevitable for a while. It gradually got heated up by such factors as cultural and ethnic division, the disagreement of the political powers in relation to the status of Russian as a second state language, regional political preferences, Orange Revolution of 2004, and orientation to opposite directions (the EU and Russia).

The roots of the conflict are traced back to the dissolution of the USSR and Cold War, and even to the policies of George Bush who planned NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine forcing Russia to respond (Saunders, 2014). A pressing question today is whether or not it is possible to put Ukraine back together after all the damage caused to the east of the country and all the deep resentment the two sides developed towards each other. Besides, the end of military operations would lead tens of thousands of combatants back home, and these people would pose a serious, uncontrollable armed threat (Timofeev, 2015). Besides, war serves as an excellent cover for economic troubles in Ukraine, the end of military conflict would immediately move the focus towards the unsuccessful politicians.

Conclusion

The current conflict in Ukraine has a number of causes and predictors which determined the course of its development many times throughout the last decade. The conflict was caused not only by the weak statehood of the country and multiple dimensions of its internal division but also by the surrounding forces such as Russia, the US and the EU whose clash automatically put Ukraine in the middle.

Reference List

Ahmed, S., Botelho, G., & Gumuchian, M. (2014). 20 questions: What’s behind Ukraine’s political crisis?Web.

Gonzalez, S. (2015). Ukrainian crisis was an inevitability, says the country’s U.N. ambassador. Web.

Kravchenko, V. (2014). 2014 Russia – Ukraine Crisis: Causes, Nature, Implications. Web.

Liddy, M. (2015). Explained: Ukraine conflict in maps. Web.

Manni, M. (2014). Ukraine’s Crisis Explained. Web.

Marcus, J. (2014). Ukraine crisis: Is war inevitable? Web.

McLaughlin, L. (2014). The Conflict in Ukraine: a Historical Perspective. Web.

Rozin, I. (2014). The root causes of the Ukraine crisis go all the way back to 1991. Web.

Saunders, P. J. (2014). How Russia Sees the Ukraine Crisis. Web.

Timofeev, I. (2015). The longer the Ukraine crisis lasts, the more war becomes inevitable. Web.

Understanding All Sides To The Conflict In Ukraine. (2014). DailyKos. Web.

Yakovenko, A. (2014). Ukrainian crisis: Root causes and blame game. Web.

Introduction

Sovereignty is an issue of substantial gravity in Ukraine, particularly with Russia on its tail. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the two countries have been at war since (Hunter 10). Putin claims that he is shielding Ukraine from the negative influence of Western counties, while Ukraine wants Russia off its territories. In 2014, Maidan Revolution transpired in Ukraine, where Ukrainians removed Yanukovych from office when he began the Eurasian Custom Union dialogues (Fix 125). Russian forces also took control of Crimea, a stronghold of Ukraine during the same year. Ukraine must understand its history with Russia and the factors that threaten its autonomy to formulate strategies that will help retain its sovereignty.

Scholars suggest that Russia has a problem accepting Ukraine’s autonomy. Political analysts insinuate that the gas shortage in Ukraine in 2008 was Russia’s tactic in turning the masses against Ukraine’s President Yushchenko and halting the European Union dialogue (Kushnir 125). The majority of Russian leaders consider Ukraine an extension of Russia since they share cultures and before Ukrainian was made the national language, the Ukrainians used the Russian language (Mykhnenko 530). Russia has interfered with the Ukrainian political process severally and vouched for leaders that support Ukraine association with them.

Early History

Ukraine was under the rule of the Soviet Union (SU) before becoming a free state in 1991. More than 90% of Ukrainians voted for the autonomy of their country in a referendum (Kushnir 121). Ukraine became an associate of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a coalition of states under the previous SU. In 1994, Ukraine transferred its nuclear weapons to Russia and Russia acknowledged the sovereignty of the Ukrainian nation (Kushnir 121). The country joined North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) the same year to be part of the champions for cohesive activities.

Geography

Ukraine is a country found in the eastern parts of Europe. Ukraine neighbors Russia, Belorussia, Poland, Slovakia, and Moldavia, among other nations. The country is endowed with black soil, the choicest soil for farming (Mykhnenko 542). Ukraine’s weather varies from temperate to subtropical in different regions. More than 30 000 types of vegetation and 11 natural state conservations are in Ukraine (Mykhnenko 540). It is rich in minerals and supplies graphite to European states.

Economy

Ukraine is the most impoverished state in Europe and has a track record of subversion and misuse of resources. The state links Asia with Europe, and products mostly go through Ukraine to get to either of the continents (Mykhnenko 536). Agriculture is the backbone of the Ukrainian economy and forms part of 22% of its Gross Domestic Product (Mykhnenko 540). Ukraine is renowned for its wheat production, manufactures automobiles, provides minerals, and relies on tourism.

Recent History

Russian troops were lurking at the Ukrainian borders from 2021 and breached them in February 2022. Ukrainian infrastructure has been demolished by bombs in the war zones, leaving Ukrainians homeless with no source of income (Green et al. 10). Zaporizhzhia, an atomic power establishment, is now under Russia, threatening global security (Green et al. 14). Putin said he resists until Ukraine declares itself non-partisan and ceases negotiations with European and Western countries.

Russia took Crimea under its wing after the riots that removed Yanukovych from power in 2014. Russians are the dominant group in Crimea, but Crimea is within Ukraine’s territory (Fix 134). Russia supporters incited the masses against Ukraine, stating that the state discriminated against Russians, and Crimeans voted to be under Russia’s jurisdiction and not Ukraine’s (Fix 136). The move represented a threat to Ukraine as Crimea is one of its strongholds and within its territory.

In 2014, the Ukrainians overthrew the government of their then president, Yanukovych. Ukrainians voted Yakukovych into power as he pretended to be pro-European during the election period. However, after winning the election, Yanukovych was inactive in the European Union dialogues and publicly announced in 2013 that he would not sign the contract (Liu 10). His declaration of consolidating with the Eurasian Custom Union stirred the public to harmonious demonstrations (Liu 10). The use of military force to disband the protestors resulted in riots that ousted Yanukovych from his political seat.

Political Interference by Russia

Russia influences the Ukrainian political climate and presents a threat to Ukraine’s self-rule. In 2014, around 44% of Ukrainians were in support of Putin, and many Russian politicians sought Putin’s backing that year for popularity (Kushnir 126). The votes for Russia supporting candidates accounted for more than 30% of the total casted votes that year (Kushnir 126). Investigative analysts attest that the gas shortage in Ukraine from Russia during Yushchenko’s reign was to turn the tables in the next election, and it worked (Kushnir 125). Russian influence on Ukrainian elections increases their probability of getting a pro-Russian president who will be effective in implementing their demands.

Energy Reliance

Furthermore, Ukraine’s heavy dependency on Russia’s energy endangers its sovereignty. Kovalenko shows that Ukraine gets 49% gas, 65% diesel, and 40% petroleum from bordering states, including Russia (44). Despite the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, the gas from Russia transits through Ukraine, and Ukraine gets paid for its services. The culmination of the Nord Stream 2 in 2021, a pipeline that connects Russia and Germany, shifts the Ukrainian edge over Russia (Kovalenko 44). Fuel dependence caused an economic recession in Ukraine in 2008 when Russia halted its gas supply to the country (Kovalenko 45). Ukraine’s desperation and subservience negate its course for independence.

Strategic Positioning

Ukraine connects Russia with the other European nations. Currently, 80% of liquefied petroleum gas from Russia to Europe goes through Ukraine. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 attempts to prevent Ukraine from establishing deeper diplomatic interrelations with Europe and America (Hunter 14). In 2013, Russia tried to gain control of Ukraine by luring Yakukovych to engage in Eurasian Custom Union dialogues (Mykhnenko 550). Many business moguls saw Ukraine as a safety net after Putin imprisoned Mikhail Khodorkovsky 2002, an oil tycoon for evading levy and corruption (Mykhnenko 548). Ukraine is the heart of Russia, and Putin cannot watch silently while its pulse fades.

Improving Political Structure

Political liberalization is advantageous in formulating and enacting policies to reduce political incompetency. Liu states that shaping the political climate of a nation requires investing at least 2.5% of the country’s gross domestic product in research and structural changes to provide instantaneous peak returns (15). In 2019, Servant of the People, a Ukrainian-based political party placed Volodymyr Zelensky in the presidential seat during the 2019 general election (Sazhniev and Sułkowska 320). In 2020, Ukraine’s leadership formulated an anti-corruption committee to enhance accountability and integrity in governance (Sazhniev and Sułkowska 312). The disadvantage of modifying the political structure is that it takes time to yield results due to an ineffective judicial structure, fostering injustice.

Seeking Alternative Energy Sources

Ukraine’s energy independence will keep it free from Russia’s manipulation and ensure economic sustainability. Kovalenko posits that in 2020, Russia’s fuel accounted for only 8% of the United Kingdom and 3% of United States oil, revealing that they have diversified their portfolio. Europe and US have stopped importing oil from Russia due to the ongoing war and rely on fuel from their reserves and International Energy Agency (Davydov et al. 6). Recently, the US assented to transmit 15 billion cubic meters of gas to European countries, and Ukraine could benefit from this pact (Davydov et al. 17). The con to seeking alternative energy sources is their high cost, and Ukraine may struggle to finance the transition due to poverty.

Involving Third Parties like the US

The United Nations (UN), the US, and other European countries will strengthen Ukraine’s resolve to remain free from Russian influence by providing material and social support. Green et al. project that Ukraine needs almost $20 billion to fund its war activities and aid its citizens (7). The US helped South Sudan become an independent state in 2011 by aiding the formulation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that provided the foundation for the referendum (Kuol 70). The US could provide material and social support to facilitate the current war and continue to deter Russia from business to weaken their resolve. Conversely, third-party associations will shift Ukraine’s dependency on Russia to other nations. Ukraine cannot fight against Russia by itself and must rely on external parties for sustenance.

Ukraine

Ukraine must consider its capacity to implement reforms that will reduce Russia’s interference. Liberalizing the political system requires heavy investment, and Ukraine cannot stop using Russia’s fuel immediately as it will take time to establish its reliance (Kovalenko 44). Ukraine still owes Russia $4.6 billion for gas, and its attempt to seek gas supply from Poland has not been seamless due to insufficient funds (Kovalenko 43). Including other nations in the fight for its independence has presented the country with numerous advantages, but it threatens its financial sustainability in the long run.

Europe

Moreover, Ukraine’s move toward independence affects Russia and other European states differently. Russia sees it as a threat to its potency in Europe and will fight to keep Ukraine within its grasp. Russia will not let Ukraine source energy from other nations unhinged as it will weaken its dependency (Kovalenko 46). Ukraine’s energy independence from Russia provides Poland with an opportunity for market expansion (Kovalenko 45). Europe will incur expenses in supporting Ukraine in the current war.

US, UN, and other Nations

The United States, UN, and other nations offer their support to Ukraine amidst various restrictions. The US cannot dispatch its troops to Ukraine to help them conquer as Russia will see them as an enemy and declare war on their country, leading to a nuclear war that would cripple the global economy (Hunter 20). Additionally, the UN does not have the force to stop Russia from fighting Ukraine but can only facilitate peace negotiations and humanitarian aid to those affected by the war (Hunter 21). If the third parties do not tread carefully, World War III could become a reality.

Prediction

Forecasts are vital in determining Ukraine’s stability and ensuring the reliability of external support networks. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has destabilized the nation, and many Ukrainians are escaping from their own countries. Green et al. suggest that a total of 5.4 million Ukrainians will have left their country by the end of this year (14). Ukrainian refugees will depopulate Ukraine by more than 10%, and a majority of them will not be part of the nation-building when the war ends. As a result, Ukraine will take longer to attain its economic independence after the war.

Ukraine will enjoy greater autonomy from Russia if it succeeds in getting Russia off its soil. Russia will take at least 10 years to recover from trade sanctions imposed by other nations (Davydov et al. 16). Numerous countries will shun engaging in business activities with Russia and cripple its economy (Davydov et al. 17). Russia may have to leave Ukrainian soil and negotiate for peaceful relations to save face.

Consequently, Ukraine will attain some degree of energy autonomy from Russia in years to come. Ukraine is slowly moving from fossil fuel to more eco-friendly energy sources in years to come (Hunter 12). Ukraine has lowered its gas consumption and widened the use of renewable energy. The country will draw its energy from solar, biogas, and nuclear systems (Hunter 12). Poland has the contract to supply Ukraine with liquefied petroleum gas. Shifting and diversifying energy sources portray progress in the Ukrainian attempt at freedom.

Conclusion

Ukraine should keep fighting for its independence from Russian influences as Russia has no respect for its sovereignty and initiated the current war with Ukraine. Russia has used various strategies to keep Ukraine under control, such as cutting off the gas supply. The state should integrate its political systems, formulate schemes to get energy from alternative means and seek the help of third parties to keep its autonomy.

Works cited

Davydov, Denis, et al. “Who Cares about Sanctions? Observations from Annual Reports of European Firms.”Post-Soviet Affairs, 2022, pp. 1–28.

Fix, Liana. “The Russia-Ukraine Conflict 2014: Germany as a Leading Power.”Germany’s Role in European Russia Policy, 2021, pp. 119–156.

Green, James A., et al. “Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and the Jus Ad Bellum.”Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, pp. 4–30.

Hunter, Robert. “The Ukraine Crisis: Why and What Now?”Survival, vol. 64, no. 1, 2022, pp. 7–28.

Kovalenko, Alina. “Reliable Instrumental Metering of Natural Gas Is the Key to Ukraine’s Energy Independence.”Ukrainian Metrological Journal, no. 2, 2021, pp. 45–49.

Kuol, Luka Biong. “South Sudan: The Elusive Quest for a Resilient Social Contract?”Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, vol. 14, no. 1, 2019, pp. 64–83.

Kushnir, Ostap. “The Great Dichotomy: How Experiences of History and Transcendence Explain Ukraine’s Political Life.”New Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 1, 2021, pp. 119–139.

Liu, Zixiu. “News Framing of the Euromaidan Protests in the Hybrid Regime and the Liberal Democracy: Comparison of Russian and UK News Media.”Media, War & Conflict, 2020, pp. 1–32.

Mykhnenko, Vlad. “Causes and Consequences of the War in Eastern Ukraine: An Economic Geography Perspective.”Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 72, no. 3, 2020, pp. 528–560.

Sazhniev, Mykhailo, and Joanna Sułkowska. “Russian Culture and Management of Meaning in Introduction of Political Influence in Ukraine.”Journal of International Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, 2020, pp. 310–323.

My approach to looking for sources has been to seek out the newest scholarly articles about the Russian invasion and its effects on the global economy, focusing on the United States. Finding these articles was not easy because the war had started almost five months ago, as of writing this annotated bibliography. Most of my searches led me to news articles or opinion pieces. One particular goal is discovering research on the United States’ involvement in the war and its effects. The articles mostly focused on the economic drawbacks of the invasion of the global economy. Ultimately, I wanted to argue that the involvement of the United States in the Russia-Ukraine war led to the escalation of conflict between America and other influential countries, such as China and Russia.

This research article examines the specific influence of China on the Russia-Ukraine war, giving valuable context to the involvement of the United States. Madumika (2022) states: “The power battle between the United States and China has reached a fever pitch” and “a good illustration of this is the Cold War between China and the United States” (p. 3, p. 6). The author provides information about the Thucydian trap and asserts that the United States and China are in the same situation. NATO and China are directly backing two warring states and escalating tensions in the geopolitical sphere of the entire world. I decided to include this article since it gives clear and concise evidence of my claim and is relevant to the topic.

This article discusses the outcomes of the Russia-Ukraine war, mostly assessing the economic situation in the world, specifically in the US, UK, Canada, and Europe. The main consequences of Mbah and Wasum (2022) came to be higher inflation, reduction in household consumption due to higher prices (oil, gas, wheat, minerals), economic growth impediments, and stock swings globally and in Europe in particular (p. 150). The article claims that these economic drawbacks negatively affecting the countries examined are severe enough to require salvation through diplomatic negotiations with Russia. The conclusion that the writers come to, in my opinion, leaves the reader believing that negotiations are possible without assessing the tense political situation between Russia and the United States.

This article suggests that the Russian economy will go into a deep economic recession as a consequence of the Russian invasion. The estimates they provide are: “Russia’s real GDP will fall by 4–9 % in 2022, while growth will range from –1 % to 2.5 % in 2023 “(2022, para. 5). The article outlines clear consequences of massive sanctions placed on the country as of the start of the war. I used this as an example because it explains the economic tension between Russia and other countries, such as Europe and the United States. In my opinion, it adds to the argument I am trying to make – that the invasion triggered massive escalation contention between these global giants. Sanctions and the limitation of export as a response to them from Russia worsen its relationship with the Western world.

This article specifically focuses on American foreign policy and the relationship between the United States, NATO, and Europe. It states: “One can argue that the relationship between the US and Europe/the EU/NATO has strengthened” (2022, p. 161). Olsen asserts that transatlantic cooperation has increased because of America’s continuous support of European NATO members that increased defense spending. Olsen also provides the peace negotiations between the United States and Russia as evidence for this claim. I cannot entirely agree with this statement because, as Olsen explains himself, the EU member was hesitant to decide on the invasion of Ukraine, which pushed the US to such “unilaterally” (2022, p. 161). In my opinion, it only worsened the relationship between the United States and Europe.

This article focuses on the global economic impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war. To summarize its conclusion, the instability costs of the war go beyond the context of Russia and Ukraine, meaning it will affect many other countries, and there is a risk of economic spillovers from sanctions to Europe. These spillovers will impact “European countries in the sample and the USA while China has shown resilience to the sanctions” (Qureshi et al., 2022, para. 5). This article clearly illustrates the argument I want to make – America’s involvement in sanctioning Russia escalates tension between the two, and both suffer some drawbacks.

This essay draws parallels between the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Taiwan Strait situation between the United States and China. Smith (2022) indicates the similarities and differences between the two, and that the war could have serious ramifications for the Taiwan Strait – a contested territory between China and Taiwan. Smith (2022) writes: ” Four important considerations for the United States and Japan to consider as they look ahead at maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait emerge from the example of Russia’s invasion” (p. 89). The United States may have to use force to secure the Taiwan Strait, pushing back China. This possible confrontation shows the negative impacts of the Russia- Ukraine war on US foreign relations.

References

Madumika, I. (2022). Emerging Chinese-American authority through the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Mbah, R. E., & Wasum, D. F. (2022). Russian-Ukraine 2022 war: A review of the economic impact of Russian-Ukraine crisis on the USA, UK, Canada, and Europe.Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(3). 144-153.

Nezhyva, M., & Mysiuk, V. (2022). War in Ukraine: challenges for the global economy.Foreign Trade: Economics, Finance, Law, 121(2), 16–25.

Olsen, R. G. (2022). “America is back” or “America first” and the transatlantic relationship. Politics and Governance, 10(2), 154–164.

Qureshi, A., Rizwan, S. M., Ahmad, G., & Ashraf, D. (2022). Russia-Ukraine war and systemic risk: Who is taking the heat?. Finance Research Papers, 48.

Smith, A. S. (2022). The United States, Japan, and Taiwan: What has Russia’s aggression changed?National Bureau of Asian Research, 17(2), 69-97.

In the modern world, when all countries are closely interacting with each other, such events as war can have a significant impact on the global economy. Even though the Russian invasion has just started, it has already caused a number of economic issues. The major problems include the increasing transportation costs and disruption of the global supply chain. Also, since Russia is considered to have one of the most substantial cyber warfare capabilities, worldwide cyber aggression may become a major economic threat.

In the present moment, the main concern for the global economy is the disruption of supply chains that are caused by Russia engaging in the war. Russian suppliers are distributed all around the globe. More than 2100 the U.S and 1200 European firms have at least one direct supplier from Russia or Ukraine. However, regarding indirect suppliers, the number of affected organizations increases significantly, reaching about 200000 firms in the U.S. and 150000 firms in Europe. Therefore, the indirect impact of the conflict on the global supply chain is profound, which results in soaring prices for various materials and goods.

The war has a significant impact on commodities and materials. Firstly, Russia is the biggest wheat exporter, and Ukraine is among the world’s top exporters of corn. The result of their economic isolation can be a price shock on food in the countries that depend on Russian and Ukrainian exports. Secondly, the invasion impacts the supply of metals and raw materials from these countries, which is a significant threat to some manufacturing companies. For instance, Russia possesses about 10% of the world’s copper reserves, apart from other metals, and Ukraine, according to experts, is a profound supplier of minerals.

In addition, natural gas and oil prices are also spiking, which leads to increased transportation costs and expensive electricity. Since natural gas has become an essential source of energy, the limited supply from Russia can result in financial difficulties for manufacturers and other electricity-dependent facilities. For instance, Germany is highly dependent on natural gas in electricity production and manufacturing, making it vulnerable to a gas shortage. As a result, the export of automobiles, transport equipment, and electronics from Germany is now disrupted. While limited gas supply impedes the world’s manufacturing process, soaring oil prices interfere with global transportation. Being one of the leading oil producers, Russia made many companies paranoid about the worldwide energy supply, which has led to oil stockpiling activities and significant price increases of the fuel.

However, experts suggest that the main threat to the global supply chain and economy may be caused by Russian cyber-attacks. Russia is considered to have one of the world’s most advanced cyber warfare systems that can intervein with the work of crucial economic software. For example, Russian hackers already used such cyber technology in Ukraine in 2017. The attack resulted in the software malfunction of tax systems and impediment of industrial facilities, causing the damage of 7 billion dollars to various companies.

In conclusion, war can create many economic challenges that are especially destructive in the modern interrelated world. Political conflicts can disrupt the global supply chain, causing prices of materials, commodities, food, and energy to increase. Even though the rising prices are a severe problem, the significant economic concern with today’s war is connected with the threat of cyber security damage.