The world order’s monumental rocks of international cooperation, support, and interrelation have turned out to be the stones of illusion as raging waves of one person’s political ambitions came into force. What is the point of defense alliances if an aggressor is able to invade with impunity to a sovereign state? When every minute of the current diplomatic dialogue worth a life taken by Putinity? These are questions that may come into mind during the actual war proclaimed by Putin and his regime. However, the signs of the impending catastrophe were visible long before the outlaw recognition of the so-called “LNR and DNR” and even before the launch of this Donbas issue and unacceptable Crimea annexation. It would be reasonable to state that Putin’s speech in 2007 in Munich was the revelation of his rapacious aspirations and political milestones.
In the mentioned speech, Putin appealed to the facts regarding NATO actions in Moldova and Bush’s policy in Iraq, claiming their inappropriacy. This was a foundation for his primary message – Russia will no longer be a part of European security alliances, and de facto quit several international treaties in this vein (Putin, 2007). Particularly, Putin was dismantling the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security that was a basis for partnership between Russia and NATO. According to Putin, the latter was expanding its powers to the countries of Eastern Europe, given numerous agreements with the states of the area. Taking into account his aspirations to rebuild the Soviet Union, Putin considered such an approach as a threat to the Russian “desired” political course.
The subsequent events showed that Putin was ready to reinforce his words with actions, which was visible from the policies in Georgia and Moldova. The following Donbas and Crimea issues, as well as the current full-scale war in Ukraine, simply confirmed Putin’s direction of terror (Fried & Volker, 2022). However, it should be admitted that the policies of the US and its Allies may have contributed to the actual situation in Ukraine as well. First, these are the military affairs undertaken by NATO in Kosovo and Bush’s invasion in Iraq, which served as an international precedent for Putin to follow and justify his war. Second, it is the policy founded on the misbelief of strategic, consistent, and productive cooperation with Russia. The Western countries seem to look at the state of affairs through the lens of naivete for too long, trying to build relations with Putin’s regime. Preventive activities should have taken place after Putin’s statements in 2005 and 2007.
An acute question now is how to deal with the current aggression at Ukraine’s territory. Desperate times require desperate measures, but not when a lunatic, stubborn, and aged dictator with a nuclear arsenal and the state that is built on braces of army and military power is involved. An open martial confrontation will be too costly for Ukraine and the entire world. The only visible ways are to appeal to Russian society, a vast part of which does not support the war and Putin, and to enhance sanctions. These two policies are interrelated to a significant extent. Particularly, the economic isolation of Russia, resulting in the deprivation of benefits of civilization (except the extraction of natural resources, the country possesses very poor production powers), will spur Russian people to express their discontent and rebel against Putin’s oppressive regime. The latter – and it worth mentioning – is contributing to the rebelling process as well by restricting the freedom of speech, expression, press, Internet, and social media, turning Russia into a completely totalitarian state.
References
Fried, D., & Volker, K. (2022). The speech in which Putin told us who he was. Politico.
Putin, V. (2007). The Putin Manifesto. Air Force Magazine.