Ukraine and deluded Putin

OTTAWA—The unprovoked invasion of democratic Ukraine by the Russian military appears to have united most of the world in opposition. It is now clear that since 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategic goal has been to bring all of Ukraine under his fist—not just the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. An increasingly cynical Putin employed classic imperial methods of territory acquisition—military and diplomatic—to create the so-called Novorossiya, or New Russia, to include the two regions, but also much of the rest of the southeast Ukraine. After signing the Minsk Agreements in 2015, Ukraine found itself under the threat of complete subjugation by Moscow. The agreements sought to implant two territorial units with a specific administrative status into the independent nation of Ukraine. The two territories were to form their own police, court, and prosecution authorities in order to maintain social order. Ukraine was also obliged to support trans-border cooperation of the regions with the Russian Federation. The final blow for Ukraine was to occur as a result of parliamentary elections in October 2019 when the citizens of Donbas were expected to vote for pro-Russian parties. The Minsk process held an existential threat for all Ukraine; it could have brought the country back into Russia’s orbit which would have drastically changed the geopolitical map of Europe. With the support of international partners, Ukraine after 2014 was able to withstand the military threat. Putin realized that the democratic world wasn’t going to submit to his ultimatums on NATO expansion and submit to his plan of Ukrainian annexation through the Minsk Agreements. Putin’s first step was to officially recognize the two pseudo-republics on Feb. 22 and send troops to their territories. Russia thus irreversibly withdrew from the Minsk Agreements and lost its last chance to bring Ukraine back under its political influence without a military invasion. His next step was to launch a war against Ukraine on Feb. 24. The bloody incursion significantly weakens the dictator’s personal position. Russian political elites are suffering major financial and credibility blows as a result of the current confrontation with the democratic world. Many are corrupt; their large assets in Western countries were blocked or limited in 2014. Since they prefer to educate their children, obtain medical services, and take vacations in EU countries, many felt vulnerable when sanctions imposed in 2014 limited them to Russia. With his imperialistic, aggressive anti-Ukrainian, anti-Western politics, Putin becomes even more problematic for the inner elite. An internal coup now seems feasible. It began at the assembly of the Russian Security Council on Feb. 21 when Putin forced the elite to public recognition of the separatist republics in Eastern Ukraine and further violent aggression. The speech by the head of foreign intelligence service, Sergey Naryshkin, was revealing as he stammered and tried to avoid direct words in favour of the act. Putin repeatedly specified and led him to the expected answer. It looked like public coercion of Naryshkin to participate in the bloodstained aggression for which he’ll likely be held accountable in the future. In Russia, the manoeuvre is called “to bind by blood." It’s what Joseph Stalin did when deciding on mass executions. He forced the political elite to personally sign the decrees on executions and write the words “execute by shooting." Stalin, when conducting his bloodthirsty tyranny, was fearful of internal overturns which might be organized by the elites. He included key politicians in the execution process and thus insured himself by making collective decisions and giving each politician equal responsibility. Like Stalin, Putin is aware that the decision on mass shootings or large-scale aggression against a sovereign state is a major crime with no period of limitation. The modern world has already prosecuted such war criminals as Saddam Hussein, Mu'ammar Gaddaffi, and Slobodan Milosevic. Vladimir Putin could well be next. David Kilgour was elected as both a Progressive Conservative and Liberal MP, ending his 26 years in Parliament as an Independent MP in 2006. He’s a former Liberal secretary of state for Latin America and Africa (1997 to 2002) and for Asia-Pacific (2002 to 2003). Dmytro Pavel is an analyst of European politics. The Hill Times