Saturday 31 May 2025
A perspective on the Russia/ Ukraine war
In the ever-evolving saga of the Russia-Ukraine war, understanding the historical context is crucial. This week, I delve into a pivotal moment from the past that many argue set the stage for the current tensions: the agreement between then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion.
The Baker-Gorbachev Agreement: A Broken Promise?
In the early 1990s, amidst the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Baker assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward if the USSR consented to the reunification of Germany. This understanding, often described as a verbal agreement, is viewed by many in Russia as a cornerstone of post-Cold War diplomacy. The essence of this compact was that, in exchange for allowing a unified Germany to remain within the Western sphere, the West would respect Russia’s sphere of influence and not encroach upon its borders through NATO expansion.
Fast forward to the present, and the reality seems starkly different. NATO has not only expanded but has encroached upon several former Soviet states, leading to a perception of betrayal and escalating tensions. From the Russian perspective, this perceived violation of trust has fueled a sense of insecurity that directly correlates with the West’s increasing military presence near its borders.
The Ukraine Crisis: A Geopolitical Flashpoint
The conflict in Ukraine, ignited by the 2014 Maidan protests and subsequent annexation of Crimea, can be traced back to these historical grievances. The West’s support for Ukraine’s pivot towards NATO and away from Russian influence was seen not merely as a political shift but as an existential threat. For many in Russia, Ukraine is not just a neighbor; it’s a historically and culturally intertwined nation. The loss of Ukraine to Western influence is viewed as a strategic loss that could embolden NATO further.
The Russian narrative emphasizes that the West has consistently disregarded its security concerns, viewing the Eastward expansion of NATO as a direct affront. The military buildup in Eastern Europe and the rhetoric surrounding Ukraine have only intensified these feelings. Moscow argues that its actions in Ukraine are a defensive measure, designed to protect its sovereignty and national interests against what it perceives as encroachment by NATO.
The Maidan Square Incidents: A Turning Point
The Maidan Square protests in late 2013 marked a pivotal moment in Ukraine’s history. Initially, the protests began as a response to then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to suspend an association agreement with the European Union, favoring closer ties with Russia instead. However, the protests quickly escalated into a broader movement against government corruption and a desire for greater democratic reforms.
As the protests intensified, they took a violent turn in early 2014, leading to the ousting of Yanukovych. For many in Russia, the events surrounding Maidan were not merely a popular uprising but a Western-backed coup that destabilized Ukraine and threatened Russian interests. The perception is that the West sought to leverage discontent to install a government more aligned with NATO and EU interests, further encroaching on Russia’s sphere of influence.
The Donbas Declaration: A Cry for Independence
In the wake of the Maidan protests and the new government’s pivot towards the West, unrest grew in Eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Luhansk. In April 2014, following a controversial referendum, the people of Donbas declared independence from Ukraine, citing fears of discrimination and hostility from the new government in Kyiv. This declaration was seen by many in Russia as a legitimate expression of self-determination, reflecting the region’s cultural and historical ties to Russia.
The Russian perspective emphasizes that the Donbas population, predominantly Russian-speaking, felt marginalized and threatened by the nationalist sentiment that had emerged in Ukraine post-Maidan. This narrative underlines the belief that the conflict is not merely a territorial dispute but a struggle for the rights and identities of people in the region.
The Azov Battalion: Controversial Forces in the Conflict
A significant element of the conflict has been the involvement of various militia groups, notably the Azov Battalion. Formed in 2014 as a volunteer unit to combat separatists in Donbas, the Azov Battalion has faced widespread criticism for its alleged connections to far-right ideologies and neo-Nazi elements. This association has been leveraged by Russian state media to frame the conflict in Ukraine as not just a struggle against separatism but against a resurgent fascism.
The Azov Battalion’s symbolism and rhetoric have raised concerns about the rise of nationalism in Ukraine. Russian narratives often emphasize the battalion’s extremist affiliations to portray the conflict as one where the very essence of Russian identity and security is under threat. This portrayal serves to galvanize domestic support in Russia for military actions in Ukraine, framing them as a necessary defense against extremist ideologies.
Conclusion
As the conflict in Ukraine continues to unfold, it is crucial to understand the multifaceted historical and political dimensions that have led to the current situation. The Maidan Square incidents, the declaration of independence by the people of Donbas, and the controversial role of groups like the Azov Battalion all contribute to a complex narrative that shapes the Russian perspective on the war.
From Moscow’s viewpoint, the West’s interference in Ukraine has not only destabilised a neighbouring country but has also threatened the security of Russia itself. Recognising these historical grievances and the diverse voices within Ukraine is essential for any meaningful dialogue aimed at achieving peace and stability. As I reflect on this week’s developments, the hope remains that a resolution will emerge that honours the complexities of history while paving the way for a peaceful future for all involved.
To all my friends, this troubled world over, I wish you a pleasant and peaceful weekend.
Bob
Bob Costello 
Well done sir.
This has always been the case and it cant be altered–ITS FACT.
Most of the worlds media that used to be a source of news and facts is now a disgrace, and shame on the people that listen too and believe them, sheep!
What a brilliant place Europe would be if it worked with Russia instead of fighting it. All the brave Russians that died to save europe for nothing. Gets me angry.