Ukraine: When Diplomacy Fails

Hope for diplomacy vanished as the United Nations Security Council met Thursday night. The emergency meeting was requested by Ukraine as an eleventh-hour effort to halt further Russian advancement into its territory. Ukraine’s Ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya began his opening remarks by reading Article 4 of the U.N. Charter: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

Coincidentally, Kyslytsya’s words were directed at the man presiding over the security council, Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya. The presidential seat is rotated monthly among the council’s 15 members; it so happens that February fell on Russia. As the meeting took place, 5,000 miles away, Russia had begun invading Ukraine. The preceding months had shown signs of a potential Russian offensive, but the suddenness of Thursday night forced the Ukrainian ambassador to forgo his prepared remarks:

“So when I was coming here an hour ago or so, I was intending to ask the Russian ambassador to confirm, on the record, that the Russian troops will not start firing at Ukrainians today and go ahead with the offensive. It became useless 48 minutes (ago). Because about 48 minutes ago, your president declared war on Ukraine.”

Only a few days prior, US Intelligence had determined that President Vladimir Putin had already ordered his troops to invade Ukraine. On February 21st, the Kremlin recognized the independence of two breakaway regions in Eastern Ukraine: Donetsk and Luhansk. Amid preparing his nation for the eventuality of war, President Volodymyr Zelensky continued to pursue diplomatic channels with Putin. Hours before the attack, Zelensky shared: “Today I initiated a phone call with the president of the Russian Federation. The result was silence.”

The possibility of Ukraine’s admission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is believed to have been the basis for Putin’s aggression; though this might be true, it is apparent that this is only part of the story. In a televised address from the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin expressed his beliefs regarding the history of Ukraine:

“Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood. — Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely, Bolshevik, communist Russia. This process began immediately after the revolution of 1917 — As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose.”

Considering these words, we should reflect on the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula 8-years ago. Crimea had been a part of Russia from 1738 to 1954, before being transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, 90 percent of Ukrainians voted for independence through a national referendum. When it came to Crimea, the ethnic composition was far from homogenous; over 50 percent of its population was ethnically Russian, while Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars formed the minority. The 2014 Euromaidan Revolution created the perfect storm for those hoping to exploit this divide. Pressured by the Kremlin, Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a free trade agreement with the European Union. This sparked mass protests in the country and eventually led to his removal from office. Putin took advantage of these conditions to invade Crimea and hold a referendum.

“The referendum was illegal under Ukrainian law. Moreover, it offered voters two choices: to join Russia, or to restore Crimea’s 1992 constitution, which would have entailed significantly greater autonomy from Kyiv. Those on the peninsula who favored Crimea remaining a part of Ukraine under the current constitutional arrangements found no box to check. The referendum unsurprisingly produced a Soviet-style result: 97 percent allegedly voted to join Russia with a turnout of 83 percent.” (Pifer, 2019).

The United Nations’ failure to punish Russia for this illegal annexation can be brokenness down to two structural issues. First, the assembly passes non-binding recommendations that are referred to as resolutions. After the annexation of Crimea, the UN assembly “adopted a resolution urging the Russian Federation to withdraw its military forces from Crimea and end its temporary occupation of Ukraine’s territory,” (UN, 2019). This resolution recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine as outlined in the UN Charter; based on this, the occupation was deemed to be unlawful, but again, this was non-binding. Secondly, Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council, which gives them veto power. This veto power allows any of the five permanent council members to block (legally binding) resolutions. 2014 and 2022 alike, Russia has vetoed resolutions condemning its actions in Ukraine.

With their survival at stake, those living in Ukraine find themselves with few options. It is estimated that more than 874,000 refugees have fled to neighboring European countries. The Shehyni-Medyka border is the main passage to Poland; getting through the border can take more than 48 hours; the situation is compounded by frigid temperatures and a lack of food. Evacuations from cities like Kyiv are dangerous. Russia invaded Ukraine from three fronts: the east (Russia), the south (Crimea), and the north (Belarus) where Russian troops had previously been stationed for so-called military exercises. On Sunday, the Mayor of Kyiv told the AP that “Right now, we are encircled.” It is reported that Russia believed it could capture the capital within a matter of days. Ukrainian resistance was gravely underestimated in Moscow’s initial assessments. This resistance is composed of Ukrainian soldiers and ordinary civilians doing extraordinary things. “We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country. Be ready to support Ukraine in the squares of our cities.” These ominous words from President Zelensky have strengthened the country’s resolve through this crisis.

346 feet below ground, civilians shelter at Arsenalna station in Kyiv; (the deepest metro station in the world). With Russia engaging in blitzkrieg warfare, air raid sirens have become a daily occurrence across Ukraine. Citizens who can not shelter in residential areas make their way to underground railway stations. “The safest place is to hide here” described a resident in Kharkiv, “you wake up in a totally new reality at 5 a.m. and you find out that the world is no longer the safe place you imagined.” Six-days into this conflict, the OHCHR believes that the civilian death toll had surpassed 136. When factoring in the deaths of military service members, Ukraine’s Health Ministry puts the death toll at 352, with more than 1,684 Ukrainians wounded (as of February 27). It took four days for the Russian Military to admit that their soldiers were being “killed and injured” in Ukraine. While the Kremlin has not released any official figures, their counterpart has stated that more than 5,000 Russians have been killed. At this stage, accurate figures are hard to determine. If we take a step back, the reality is much darker. According to the United Nations, 13,000 people have lost their lives over the course of this 8-year conflict.

The international community finds itself in a peculiar situation; there is a public will for proportional response, but in there lies a risk of escalating tensions with a nuclear power. Western countries have announced an onslaught of sanctions geared towards straining Russia economically. Weapons have also been deployed to Ukraine. After initial reluctance, Germany reversed its policy, which prohibited the transfer of weapons to states in conflict. This marks a turning point in Europe. Germany had long relied on the importation of Russian oil and gas; both countries also had a pipeline project underway. With escalating tensions on the continent, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced the pipeline project would be halted, and that the Bundestag would increase its military spending by more than 2 percent. It is important to note that in addition to the humanitarian crisis brewing, Western countries also have geo-political motives for supporting Ukraine. The country has served as a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation due to its geography. “We are acting as a shield to the whole democratic world,” says Ukrainian MP Kira Rudyk. A successful Russian invasion of Ukraine would threaten the Eastern European border of NATO.

Many have drawn valid parallels between this invasion by Russia and those conducted by Western countries. In a sinister fashion, Russia has recently used that argument to point out the hypocrisy exhibited by the international community. This whataboutism from the Kremlin serves as a justification for the atrocities it commits today. In this conversation, we should remember that past injustices need to be rectified; the ones of today need to be condemned, and those of tomorrow need to be prevented.