Russia and Ukraine Confrontation: Will NATO Intervene?

Political situation in Ukraine is deteriorating as Russia has decided to send its troops to protect its etnic origins in the region of Crimea and the regional parliament’s decision to hold referendum on 16 March. This move angers United States, European Union and Ukrainian interim government calling the referendum is a violation of international law.

Majority of population in the region is ethnic Russians and this renders Russia a moral obligation to protect their existence. In contemporary politics, moral sentiment sometimes can be enforced as a basis to justify an intervention although legal basis is violated. NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 nicely illustrates this issue.

Accordingly, Russia’s intervention in the region should be understood within moral grounds. The attachment of Russia to the people and the region is undisputedly significant. Number of media report that the crowds of people in the region shout repeatedly “Crimea is Russian.” If Crimea is Russian, then Russia feel responsbility to step in.

Moreover, Russia claims that its military incursion is justified as it is requested by Viktor Yanukovych to protect ethic Russians in the country. Mr. Yanukovych had to flee due to what is claimed “unconstitutional coup.”

The Russia’s military involvement is not new. Russia has taken similar step in Georgia’s territory in 2008 to protect Russian citizens living in South Ossetia region from Georgian military attack; and it still feels the same responsibility.

Actually, the same motive of Russia in Ukraine as it had in Georgia has been predicted before. The Poland’s then-president, Lech Kaczynski believed that after the invasion of Georgia, Russia’s next target was going to be Ukraine.

It is estimated that currently thousands Russian troops already stationed in Ukraine’s border.

The incursion of Russia’s huge military troops in the region leads to international outcry. NATO, United States and western countries condemn Russia’s action . NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in press conference following NATO Russian Council 5 March 2014 says, “Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its own international commitments. So NATO decided today to take a number of immediate steps.”

Meanwhile, President Obama and European leaders threaten Russia that they would not attend the G-8 summit held in Sochi, Russia, June 4-5, 2014 and issue economic sanctions warning.

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, insisted that the US and Russia did not need to get into an "old cold war confrontation" over the country, as quoted by UK Telegraph.

US and European countries warn Russia that its movement is not a smart choice as it will provoke a further response, as government of Ukraine has called now for full military mobilization-preparing for war. Also, the movement can escalate bigger conflicts in the neighbouring regions.

Although Russia and NATO has not yet been in an open military confrontation, their current political and strategic confrontation needs to be taken into account seriously. It seems that cold war between these two great powers are likely to continue for some time in the future.

As Ukraine understands that the move of Russia poses a serious threat to Ukraine sovereignty, a call for help from NATO is unavoidable. In this time of crisis, no other military power can be relied on except NATO.

This explanation raises a critical question. Will NATO intervene in the affairs of Ukraine’s political crisis and its current confrontation with Russia? The answer is it depends on whether Russia’s agression will cause humanitarian crisis.

In other words, unless the political crisis turn to humanitarian crisis, it is not likely that NATO will undertake military action. Therefore, we can have a high probability that NATO will launch military intervention to protect Ukraine people from Russia’s domination or against pro-Russia groups or even open military confrontation with Russia if humanitarian crisis is taking place. The possibility of NATO intervention can be made on the basis of the following reasons based on the nature of NATO expanding roles.

First, NATO is the military wing of United States and western Europe to promote democracy to the world. Therefore, military interventions have been a common tasks undertaken by NATO since the collape of Soviet Unions.

In fact, almost all interventions undertaken by NATO has political and economic interests. Most scholars of international relations argue that political and economic interests are the principal driving factors for such interventions; and not humanitarian concerns. Fixdal and Smith, for example, claim that humanitarian intervention is never pure humanitarian (Fixdal and Smith 1998:284).

Similarly, Gibbs argues that the purpose of NATO interventions are to preserve US dominant world power, promote democracy worldwide and promote hegemony of the United States and its allies (Gibbs, 2009:16).

History can proves this phemenon. Intervention of NATO in Kosovo in 1999 finally brought to an end not only to Russia influence in the region and but also collapse of Millosevic power. Military intervention in Libya finally topple down Gaddafi who has been in power more than 30 years and ensure Libya to be modern, liberal, secular and embrace democacy.

Although NATO has not taken military interventions it is likely that military options is highly probable because US and western Europe has political interests in the region. In fact, Poland has been a US key partner in the efforts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO (Ryszard Sieba in Bielen (ed) 2011:67).

Therefore, NATO needs a cause of justification to launch military action to advance its interests. Of course, the interest is here is not to topple down the existing regime like in Libya but to promote strong established democracy and get rid of Russia’influence.

United States and European Union (EU) has been actively involved in political crisis of the Ukraine since the start. US and EU not only condem the involvement of Russia in the country but also take part in Ukraine pro-European mass protest to make sure that majority of Ukranians aware that European and United States are always in their side for democracy.

The involvement of United States and European Union has a rational motive. US and EU tries to prevent the domination of Rusia as they are afraid of Ukraine falls into Russia’s influence due to its strong dependence on Russia power. Also, the strong ties of Ukraine with Russia will weaken the initiative of EU and US to expand NATO defence coverage.

Second, NATO has transformed itself from Euro-Atlantic defence to broader tasks. During the cold war, NATO primarily functioned as security defence to protect its members from external threat. However, since the collapse of Soviet Union, NATO expands its traditional role of defence or security actor to political and humanitarian actor. Its first military operation in Balkan region in 1990s to the most current one in Libya in 2011 show that NATO has played a double role as humanitarian actor. With and without UN resolution, NATO can decide to launch a military operation.

In the case of Ukraine, it is suprising that Ukraine government quickly seek protection from NATO to respond to Russia military incursion. Strategically, this crisis can be used by Ukraine to convince NATO members to support its aspiration to join NATO and convince Ukrainians that being a member of NATO is a good choice.

But if NATO finally decide to take military action in the territory of Ukraine to protect Ukraine government and its pro-government groups, it can not be justified legally and morally. In legal context, first of all, NATO has to receive mandate from United Nations Security Council authorizing NATO to undertake the action. Otherwise, it is a violation of international law of respecting state sovereignty and principle of non-interference as stipulated in UN Charter.

Moreover, the military option should be based solely on humanitarian concerns not political interests. The current situation has shown that US and Europe Union is more driven by political ambitions rather than humanitarian motives.

Although Ukraine government initiates the call for help, but it is important that NATO restrain itself from taking military action. It is much more effective to take the case to Security Council to solve the matter as Russia is one of the five permanent members.

More importantly, if NATO decides to take military action, again it will violate its treaty. Article 5 of NATO treaty restricts NATO use of force against any states unless one of itsmembers are under attack by external power. As Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it is difficult to convince international community on what basis NATO action will be justified.

ENDS

© Scoop Media