Alfred Dawes | The Ukrainian war – hot or cold?

The raging debates on social media about the invasion of Ukraine are as intense as the battles currently being fought in the former Soviet state. Russian aggression is either condemned or justified based on its right to defend its own sovereignty, versus the right of a sovereign nation to choose its own alliances. At the heart of the matter is the willingness of the Ukrainian government to join NATO. Conceived as an anti-Soviet alliance of Western countries, it has made expansion into former Warsaw Pact signatories a part of its mandate. This has not gone down well with a resurgent Russia intent on maintaining its global relevance.

A gentleman’s agreement was reportedly made as the communist bloc collapsed in the early 1990s. There would be no expansion of NATO into the East. However, as Russia descended into financial ruin and political chaos after the break-up of the USSR, that agreement was rapidly shelved. The alliance made overtures towards and accepted applications from the former communist bloc, swelling the number of members. A disappointed and obviously seething Vladimir Putin watched as his former enemies inched their armies closer to the capital of the former superpower without firing a single shot. The anger and disappointment of the former KGB agent directed at his former leaders for allowing the break-up and humiliation of the USSR has an ominous historical parallel.

In 1918, following a poison gas attack in the trenches, a young lieutenant named Adolph Hitler woke up in a military hospital to the news that Germany had surrendered. The humiliating terms of the armistice saw the once proud German state ceding territory, accepting fault for the war and paying massive reparations to the victors. A global pandemic and hyperinflation set the stage for crippling economic conditions for the Germans even as the Americans enjoyed the economic boom of the roaring 20s. As the Nazis cemented their absolute power, the memories of the humiliation and economic turmoil blamed on the Western allies were still fresh in their memories. The annexation of Sudetenland and Austria were the ominous signs ignored by a weak Western head of state, that there would be no peace in their time. The glory of the empire would soon be restored in the manifestation in the Third Reich. In spite of German rearmament and troop positioning along borders to be invaded, war had come to Europe without the allies realising until it was too late.

NATO’s continued in-your-face expansion into the Soviet sphere is akin to the terms of the armistice that served to degrade a once-proud country even more. Whether Putin is destined to follow the footsteps of the disillusioned lieutenant and start a broader war to restore glory to an empire, or is playing a very calculating game of chess in order to secure his borders from further NATO encroachment, is left to be seen.

FLASHPOINTS

Flashpoints in a broader game of chicken have included the civil wars in Georgia and Moldova. These states had attempted to leave the Russian orbit and join NATO as well. The Russian playbook was the same then as now, support separatists movements and neutralise any attempts to join the alliance. After all, no country can join NATO if they have unsecured borders. The stalemates in those conflicts have resulted in effectively a Russian victory.

With the Ukraine, the situation is different. Every European invasion of Russia has taken place through the northern European plains extending into the broad Ukrainian steppes. With no mountains to pose a barrier, the Ukraine is to Russia what the Khyber pass is to the Indian subcontinent. Fortunes and history are shaped by them. As a spy chief and military strategist, Putin knows this well. He is, by his actions, securing a garrison for the protection of his homeland against future belligerents.

Key to this preservation of national security is the securing of Russia’s sole warm water port in Crimea. All other ports in this massive country freeze in winter, rendering trade and military operations impractical. Russian expansion into the northern polar regions is an attempt to ameliorate this fact. But the Crimea and its access to the Black Sea must remain in Russian hands. NATO knows this. Putin knows this.

The annexation of Crimea after a regime change was inevitable. The blustering of Russia in response to Ukraine’s overtures to NATO was inevitable. The recognition and support of separatist regions in order to render the Ukraine incapable of controlling its recognised borders and, therefore, ineligible for NATO membership was inevitable. What is unknown is if this is the endgame for an emboldened Putin, or if he will further embarrass his NATO foes with a complete remake of the Russian empire.

If the allies accept a neutral Ukraine as a buffer state akin to Thailand between British India and French Indochina, there may be peace in our time. However, Putin’s characterisation of unwarranted NATO aggression has been damaged with his imperialistic utterances and unprovoked military campaign. We may now be entering the era of a new cold war with the possibility of a nuclear war fought not just on land but in both space and cyberspace.

If this is the genesis of a wider conflict, all the chatter about the sovereign rights of the Ukraine and Russia will have been inconsequential as we unite in prayer for our souls. Maybe that is what is needed to finally unite us, an existential or extraterrestrial threat. Humanity awaits the next moves with bated breaths.

Dr Alfred Dawes is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, CEO of Windsor Wellness Centre, and medical spokesman for Lifespan Spring Water. Follow him on Twitter @dr_aldawes. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and adawes@ilapmedical.com.