Opinion

Ukraine: International Organizations’ Hell

Published On: February 8, 2022 06:30 AM NPT By: Prateeek Raj Joshi


All in all, Ukraine, already fraught with internal political and identity divisions and economic hardships, is viewing 2022 with multiple threats and skepticism, especially regarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

If there is any country living in an utmost fear of getting invaded or experiencing an unprecedented crisis, it's Ukraine. Despite being an independent, internationally recognized, and sovereign country of the 21st century, Ukraine struggles to join sides and experiences a lot of skepticism regarding the longevity of its territorial integrity. Not only is the situation getting worse, but also the negotiations do not appear to be succeeding because of the sophisticated blame game that is rising in the region. A real war is a clear possibility, and the presence of multiple international organizations in the region has played the role of a villain rather than a savior. While these organizations have played a laudable role in trade, collective security, economy, peacekeeping, and other global affairs, Ukraine, in the contemporary context, has been experiencing the flip side of it. Despite having the agenda of instilling peace and security by helping in mediating political bargaining, these organizations have now facilitated a tug of war, which is likely to result in a havoc. The NATO, EU, and the CSTO have fraught the area with friction, likely resulting in a conflict. Therefore, it is required to elucidate the unusual challenges posed by international organizations to a sovereign, independent and stable Ukraine.

The misfortune of having NATO

Right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO 2.0 came into existence. It not only included the World War allies but also extended its hands toward the former Warsaw Pact countries. This established the long-overdue peace in Europe, and NATO 2.0 manifested itself as an essential element for World Peace. However, in Ukraine's case, this inter-continental organization has, to some extent, swayed away from its original aims and objectives. NATO has fumbled upon its stance regarding the Ukraine crisis, and thus, its involvement in the region has aggravated the chaos. Different contexts and viewpoints can be used to define this.

1.      Legality

Article 10 of the NATO Treaty states, "The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty" (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Art. 10). In a surficial sense, it might seem as if any European state could be easily integrated within the NATO alliance, and Ukraine is no exception. However, it is not upon the will of any outside state but upon the unanimous agreement between member states that plays a crucial role in determining new admission. And if its entry would make other members less secure, then that nation should not have the right to join NATO. Furthermore, France and Germany also once opposed the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO. Therefore, an active commitment to Ukraine, despite having a feeble chance of its inclusion, not only questions NATO's commitment but also makes other members feel less secure.

2.      Risk of a massive conflict

One of the reasons for NATO's reluctance and its inability to admit Ukraine is Article 5 of its treaty. Article 5 guarantees mutual protection in case of an armed attack against one or more of the member states. Ukraine's inclusion would mean that an attack against it should be considered as an attack against all. Therefore, there would always be a possibility of open declaration of war of NATO states against Russia if Russia furthers its invasion of Ukraine. As Ukraine shares immediate boundaries with Russia and has emerging border conflicts with militaries from both sides actively present and alarmed, the chance of a massive conflict would be contingent upon minimal yet highly possible scenarios. The United States has always sought a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis and has initiated numerous negotiating platforms to achieve this. Being one of the most potent powers whose foreign policy focuses on attaining security to create a better world, the U.S. should contemplate the repercussions of including Ukraine in NATO and, therefore, re-define NATO's existence in the region.

3.      Liberal phantasm

The US is regarded as the driver of the liberalism bus. In contrast to realism, which vies for power and security to attain maximum influence in the world, liberals believe in toppling authoritarians and spreading democracy, coupled with a free-market economy and institutions based on democratic beliefs. The liberal order became the single most dominant international order following the Cold War. The Western liberalists believe in the creeping obsolescence of realism and staunchly support the inclusion of liberalism-guided foreign policy for every state. Having such advocacy on the one hand but working on expanding the reach of NATO to the extent that another entity feels insecure on the other represents the illusion present in the actual implementation of liberalism principle. Despite NATO's efforts, the Russian side would never be appeased regarding its benign intentions since it was once a powerhouse that disintegrated the Soviet Union. Therefore, there would always be skepticism, or what the Realists call a "security dilemma" in the Kremlin. Adding to this, NATO's frequent promises regarding the halt of its expansion while actively participating in the invasion of Iraq and Libya exasperates Russia's skepticism. Therefore, liberalists must acknowledge the relevance of the realist school of thought and should direct towards appreciating a country's security concerns, especially if they are to establish a peaceful and democratic society.

The role of EU

Seeing the immediate border sharing with Ukraine and economic and trade integration, one must speculate that the EU has a greater hand in the Ukraine crisis. Since joining the EU has also been a platform for Ukraine to sit under the Western umbrella; it holds a high strategic value. However, the EU has been a mere bystander, often ignored in the major bilateral negotiations between the US and Russia, increasing the chances of European Security getting compromised. Therefore, similar to how Washington and Moscow are playing the main characters, Brussel also needs to move forward to its engagement in the region as its peace and security are in question.

While the emergence of the EU's role is a necessity for European security, the EU can be blamed for not understanding the domestic situation of Ukraine and its likely consequences. The societal, economic, and political division of Ukraine has substantially impacted its positioning, even before the Crimea crisis. The EU never analyzed Ukraine's situation carefully, especially the division in identities that lay inside the country. On the other hand, close inspection of Ukraine's domestic break-off provided an efficacious ground for invasion and control for Russia.

Some have termed this period as the post-World War II, where Washington and Moscow are deciding upon Europe's future and its peace and security. If the EU aims to be acknowledged by the world powers, it needs a common and unified stance regarding the Ukraine crisis, keeping Ukraine's domestic situation in mind. Furthermore, the EU's policy toward Russia and Ukraine should not just focus on conventional "Europeanization" but must also acknowledge the Eurasian policies while strongly counterbalancing Russia's undemocratic and offensive foreign policy, which is already on a dangerous track.

The role of CSTO

Since the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis and NATO's active participation, there have been a lot of questions on what precisely theregional organization for collective security established from the Collective Security Treaty between the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1992 i.e., the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) should be doing and how. Furthermore, the military intervention in Kazakhstan at the request of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has sparked questions on CSTO's engagement in Ukraine, which would definitely have devastating consequences on the stability of the region. It does not see Russia as a part of the conflict, unlike NATO and the EU, and has been ignoring any talks or bilateral discussions with those organizations. Also, during the negotiation in CSTO regarding resolving the conflict in Ukraine, the CSTO proposed a solution to send their peacekeepers, but it was ignored. If the CSTO had agreed to mobilize peacekeepers, a substantial number and influence would have been from Russia, which would have provoked the Western nations.

All in all, Ukraine, already fraught with internal political and identity divisions and economic hardships, is viewing 2022 with multiple threats and skepticism, especially regarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity. And this is being exacerbated by the inundation of international organizations firm on their ideology. Russia and its organizations must, at all cost, respect the sovereignty of its neighbor if it is to formulate an effective foreign policy for its future. Not only the stance to not let an independent country decide upon its alliance is an obnoxious position, but it would galvanize public support for Ukraine's westward leanings. Here, introducing new international organizations to bolster one's support has been nothing but a strong indicator of future failures in negotiation. Also, the decisions from Moscow incline them more towards an offensive and a quest to become a revanchist power than a defensive measure for attaining security.In the US's context, the Biden administration's response to the crisis has been a blend of deterrence as well as dialogue, which is an effective diplomatic practice in these scenarios. Since the Russian side has already displayed their military presence and maneuvering, only table talk negotiations might not have hindered Moscow from marching forward. 

The US has already spelled out the costs that Russia would have to pay in case of an attack on Ukraine- more military presence in Kyiv and NATO member states, stringent international sanctions, and so on. With that being said, the United States, along with its allies and organizations, should not expand its influence on the Eastern side, let alone on the Russian periphery. Such aggressive expansion would definitely make any country wary of the intentions, leading to a security dilemma, and as a proponent of the liberal order, the US must refrain from bolstering the relevance of realism.


Leave A Comment