Treaties, annexation, fears of war: Genesis of the Ukraine crisis

The world community has watched with mounting alarm since Russia began amassing tens of thousands of troops along the borders of Ukraine late last year, and these fears increased after President Vladimir Putin decided to recognise the independence of the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Putin has announced the deployment of Russian troops for a peacekeeping mission in the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk, triggering fears of an occupation of these enclaves since the borders claimed by Moscow-backed leaders include territories currently controlled by the Ukranian government in Kyiv.

Experts, however, contend the current crisis has its genesis in Putin’s perception that Russia was unable to achieve its strategic objectives through the annexation of the Crimean peninsula after the 2014 revolution in Ukraine that resulted in the ouster of president Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine’s growing proximity to the West, including an increase in defence cooperation, only appears to have heightened Putin’s fears.

Donetsk and Luhansk

Putin’s decision on Tuesday to recognise the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk – two breakaway or separatist enclaves within Ukraine whose leadership has already been recognised by Moscow – and to deploy Russian troops for a “peacekeeping” mission in these regions is being seen as a mere formalisation of an arrangement that has existed for years. Separatists have a sway over only a third of these two “oblasts” or administrative divisions but their claims include territories currently controlled by the Ukrainian government, giving rise to fears about the forcible occupation of these regions by the Russian troops.

Moscow’s contention that its recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk only covers the territory under the actual control of the Russia-backed leaders has done little to assuage concerns that the Russian troops could eventually play a role in helping the separatist leaders taking over more territory.

Putin’s comments during a rambling televised address early on Tuesday questioned the very existence of Ukraine, and he said it was “madness” that other former Soviet republics were allowed to leave the USSR. It was in response to these remarks that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the British Parliament that Putin had “flagrantly violated” the Minsk Agreements by recognising the “supposed independence” of Donetsk and Luhansk. Johnson further said that Putin’s “inflammatory speech” had denied that Ukraine had any “tradition of genuine statehood” and “hurled numerous other false accusations and aspersions”.

Minsk Agreements

TS Tirumurti, India’s permanent representative to the United Nations, said during an emergency session of the UN Security Council convened by Ukraine on Tuesday that the Minsk Agreements still provide the basis for a negotiated and peaceful settlement to the crisis in eastern Europe. However, experts and commentators are questioning the validity of these pacts in the aftermath of Putin’s actions.

The Minsk Agreements refer to pacts that were signed in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, in 2014 and 2015 to end the fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The original agreement was forged by a trilateral contact group that included Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) following mediation by France, Russia and Germany through the Normandy Format.

After the original agreement failed to stop hostilities, there was a second pact in 2015 that was forged by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany during talks overseen by OSCE. The second agreement effectively halted fighting between Ukrainian troops and the separatist forces, except for ceasefire violations along the 430-km contact line. According to the OSCE, there have been more than 100,000 ceasefire violations since 2015, and the incidents have increased again, with 516 ceasefire violations reported in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in January.

But Tirumurti said the Minsk Agreements still provide the basis for a negotiated and peaceful settlement and that all parties need to make “greater efforts to find common ground” to facilitate the implementation of the pacts.

The new Cold War

Fears of a new Cold War have grown as Russia and the West have been unable to agree on a way forward on the crisis in Ukraine. During his televised address on Tuesday, Putin said Russia would be ready to negotiate on the crisis provided all the issues are considered as a package. He also listed Russia’s three main issues – no expansion of NATO to the east (effectively a ban on Ukraine joining the military alliance), no deployment of offensive weapons near Russia’s borders, and the restoration of the security architecture that existed in 1997.

Even though Ukraine is unlikely to join NATO in the near future, the West has already refused to negotiate on Russia’s contentious demands. Mark Galeotti, a professor at University College London who closely tracks Russian security affairs, told Vox that Putin’s actions are aimed at cementing his legacy.

Noting that Putin is 69 and can rule for only a few more years, Galeotti said: “The last thing he wants is for his legacy in the history books to be the guy who lost Ukraine, the guy who rolled over and let NATO and the West have their way.”

Some experts have also contended that Putin’s current course of action has its genesis in the mass protests in Ukraine in 2014 that resulted in the ouster of pro-Russia leader Viktor Yanukovych and Kyiv’s subsequent proximity to the European Union and NATO.

The way forward for India

India has so far refrained from any criticism of Russia’s actions along the border with Ukraine, and the country’s envoy to the United Nations, TS Tirumurti, said during an emergency session of the Security Council on Tuesday that all parties should exercise “utmost restraint” while enhancing diplomatic efforts to find a “mutually amicable solution” that takes into account the “legitimate security interests of all countries”.

The reference to the security interests of all countries is an apparent nod to Russia’s demand for security guarantees vis-a-vis NATO. Commentators in the West have noted that India’s stance is not in sync with that of the other members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad – Australia, Japan and the US – who have strongly opposed Russia’s actions. US secretary of state Antony Blinken has even gone so far as to say that the “core principles threatened by Russia’s aggression” are crucial for stability in the Indo-Pacific.

Given that Russia is a crucial supplier of defence hardware for India, New Delhi’s reticence is understandable. India is also reluctant to take any step that could push Moscow closer to Beijing, especially against the backdrop of the dragging military standoff with China on the Line of Actual Control.

There could also be another reason for India’s position – the strong defence and security cooperation between Ukraine and Pakistan. After all, India’s decision to acquire T-90 tanks from Russia was largely spurred by the supply of T-80UD tanks to Pakistan by Ukraine. In 2020, Ukraine bagged a contract for repairing Pakistan’s Il-78 air-to-air refuelling aircraft and Pakistan’s envoy in Ukraine has been a former military officer for more than a decade.