War in Ukraine: From Bad to Worse

Bob Travica

Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, which started on February 24, 2022, is horrible and wrong. It's as wrong as any other attack on a sovereign country, including those that NATO committed in the recent past. This verdict is based on the principle of resolving international problems peacefully, which I follow. But what's really happening in this war and what is the context surrounding it – this is much harder to figure out resolutely.

Spinning the War  

For two months, mainstream TV networks and print in Canada and the U.S. have mediated the war in Ukraine to their audiences. The media buzz has been overbearing, filling most of the media time as if nothing else in the world is happening but the war in Ukraine. If average Joe happens to pay any attention, he must be utterly confused with the oversized coverage because he has never heard of Ukraine before. He might make some sense of the word "Russia" that's daily on the lips of angry politicians. What about "Putin," a complimentary word in politicians' rants? For the Canadian average Joe, this word just increases confusion as it sounds like "poutine," a popular sauce.

I rate my own understanding of international affairs at least a notch above the average. But when I ask myself, what have I learned about the war in Ukraine, I feel like a student who's long agonized over study materials but still feels stuck in ignorance. Why did Russia attack? What are its military goals? What is the situation on the ground according to independent sources, not just the Ukrainian government's statements? What's happening at peace negotiations? What are the true figures on war casualties? What political system is really in Ukraine? Are there any significant divisions regarding international relations and other issues? Why retired Ukrainian politicians are televised to deliver fiery statements to Western media? What is the influence of NATO in Ukraine? Who is really Volodymyr Zelensky? What do Ukrainians in different parts of the country think about their government and Russia? What is the historical context surrounding Ukraine-Russia-NATO relationships?

To be sure, I and others are fed with some instant, persistently repeated answers, spinning a human interest story. Briefly, Russia's mad autocrat Putin ordered the Russian army to invade Ukraine for no reason. Nobody knew his military goals but, whatever they were, his army has been failing from the start. The situation on the ground is that Russia's military keeps pounding cities and villages with artillery, air bombardment, and missiles, killing thousands, producing millions of refugees, and committing all kinds of war crimes, including genocide. The Ukrainian military is heroically defending the country and inflicting huge losses on the enemy, under the brave leadership of Ukrainian President Zelensky, who is globally recognized for leading the fight for democracy and against autocracy. This is a part of the media story of the war in Ukraine.

The other part of the media story is interviews with persons introduced as "experts." Most of the time, however, the questions that TV anchors pose are so naïve or pretentious that they insult viewers' intelligence. The same applies to bringing armchair generals before the camera. One of these has asserted that the Russian army will fail in Ukraine as it failed in 1917 (World War I combined with the Bolshevik revolution) and in 1991 (the collapse of the USSR, actually with no war activities). Perhaps this general was absent from the history class about the crucial role of the Red Army in defeating the Nazi's war machine in World War II. Another armchair general predicted that Putin "was done" after two weeks of the war, and predicted a coup in Russia. Yet another retired high officer called for removing Russia from The UN Security Council. The other part of the interview coverage is abundant statements of Ukraine's officials. Their tone is easy to guess.

What is the problem with the media story? First, it is totally one-sided. Truth is the first victim in any war since warring sides use propaganda against each other. Because the media's reporting is based primarily on Ukraine's official sources with no independent confirmation, this reporting cannot be trusted. The interviewing also gives voice exclusively to the one-sided interpretation of the war (besides selling awkward ignorance and speculations as expert analysis). Second, the media story is crafted by editors who follow closely the government's moves in international policy and possibly absorb lobbying of PR agencies (someone has to pay for the endless TV time spent on the war agenda). Editors send young reporters to war zones, and these get easily "horrified" by almost anything they see on the ground. Mature reporters cover refugees located in safer places and they interview anti-Russian politicians. The outcome of all this coverage is as biased as expected. This media bias has deeper roots, indeed. When it comes to foreign policy, free media dutifully shoot themselves in the foot. Freedom boundaries are charted in political circles that are supposed to be competent in defining national interests. So, the media become a good soldier that merely toes the line.

In the end, after being heavily exposed to the relentless media story of the war in Ukraine, I have to admit that I really know close to nothing about this war.

Clinching Namesakes 

And there is even a worse part in the media's war agenda. For instance, the BBC organizes a series of town halls with high representatives of Ukraine and surrounding countries, with a thinly veiled purpose of hoarding support for the NATO involvement in Ukraine and enlarging NATO. Then, the media keep echoing the request of Ukraine's officials that NATO establishes a no-fly zone over the country. They ask, where is the red line? How many people have to die before the no-fly zone request is met?

Political leaders of NATO countries reject the no-fly zone request for the time being and assure that the imposed unprecedented sanctions against Russia and lethal military aid poured into Ukraine should suffice in stopping Russia's military. Media people get frustrated. Then, the politicians throw a bone, "if the Russian military deploys chemical weapons, this will change the situation." The media promptly catch the bone and add the chemical weapons prompt to their interviews. The media are crying out, What will finally move the cavalry into a showdown with the aggressor?!

Any narrative draws on prototypical characters. The media have created them as part of its war agenda. The President of Russia Vladimir Putin is the bad guy vilified in the media profusely. Besides being an evil autocrat, he is mentally unstable, neurotically scared of human contact, a pathological liar, and so secretive that nobody knows what's on his mind. Media give voice to commentators who impart that Vladimir Putin intends "to bring back the USSR and to remake a Russian Empire." The media dissect Putin from the Russian people, who are "manipulated" by the state propaganda and censured media. But there are also many people engaged in anti-war protests in Russia and Putin, we are pressured to acknowledge.

In contrast, the media glorifies Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. He has been made a poster boy of Western values, such as democracy, self-determination, risk-taking, entrepreneurship... He's been lauded as an inspiration for the whole world which, allegedly, does show such admiration. The Zelensky character is angelized, devoid of any possibly unsuitable personal, political, or historical dimensions. The media chooses not to deal with his comedian background, lack of political experience, poor command of English, motivation for getting into politics, the path to power, foreign influence, unpreparedness for war, contradictory moves during the war… Zelensky must be the epitome of a good guy.

The good and the bad guy share the same name, in Ukrainian and Russian renderings. Their name means "the ruler of peace." How ironic! Vladimir is apparently bellicose, while Volodymyr fights a defensive war, aspiring to escalate it. Media endeavor to push the two namesakes into a breathtaking clinch.

Poking the Bear

Relations between Ukraine, Russia, and NATO stand in stark contrast to the simple black-and-white picture forced by politicians and media onto the public in the West. Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1994 based on the Budapest Agreement for the country's joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Cosigned by Russia, the U.S., and the U.K., this agreement guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty and existing borders. The cosigners agreed not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine but to provide assistance should it be attacked by nuclear weapons by a third party.

It appears that Russia later regretted underwriting the Budapest Agreement as it began violating it in 2014. The historical context matters for understanding possible reasons for this turn. Russia had just descended from the dismembered Soviet Union in which it played a key role. The Russian signatory of the Budapest Agreement, former President Yeltsin, was a vain political persona incapable of responding to contemporary challenges and resisting the pressures of victorious Western powers. Russia was hurting on multiple fronts and its nuclear arsenal was under loose control. When Vladimir Putin took over, Russia began consolidating internally.

In the early Putin era, the West greeted more order in Russia and investments fueled the new, burgeoning market economy. Former American President George W. Bush came close to publicly embracing Putin as a friend. But the consolidation of Russia also implied taking more care of its borders. For centuries, it has been a primary task of Russian leaders to secure the borders of the vast motherland. Grandeur in general is one of the salient traits in Russian culture. Russians believe that saving the grand motherland at any cost is a higher calling. Consider the careful nurturing of the "Great Patriotic War" tradition (fighting against Hitler's Germany in World War II 1941-1945) that is taught in schools, exhibited in the May 9 military parades, and reminded of via pictures of war generals painted on Moscow's subway cars and the facades of its famed Old Arbat street.

This tradition is an extension of the "Patriotic War" cult (fighting Napoleon's France in 1812), which in, turn, has its precursors in Russia's past. Invaders cracked their teeth on Russia. It's delusionary thinking that this patriotic culture can be changed under pressure and quickly. Contrary, history shows that, under pressure, Russia is capable of bleeding to the last drop of blood. Today Russia sees NATO's eastward expansion as a significant security threat, which feeds Russians' traditional patriotism.

The 19th-century German strategist Bismarck characterized Ukraine as a "soft belly of Russia" that is critical for conquering that country. This belly became a pain as Ukraine steadily inched toward NATO after the Budapest Agreement [1]. In 2008, Ukraine "was welcomed" to join NATO. Then, the Maidan coup happened in 2013-14, when the legitimate government was overturned with the significant help of the US whose deep involvement went down to choosing the successor president. Further on, a political ping-pong ensued between Russia and Ukraine.

In 2014, Russia took control over the Crimea peninsula, and the eastern areas of Lugansk, and Donetsk. A war in skirmishes ensued in these areas, and two attempts of negotiating their status and peace (Minsk agreements) have failed. NATO intensified training of Ukraine's military, delivering weaponry, amassing troops at Russia's border, and military exercises. Russia tested the air space of some NATO countries, and so on. (See how an American political scientist views these relations [2]). Finally, in 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution with the goal of joining NATO and the EU.

This evolution of Ukraine-NATO-Russia relations after the Budapest Agreement indicates that Ukraine's role is to poke the Russian bear and test its security strategy.

Troubled Country

Ukraine is a country divided between a Ukrainian and a pro-Russian part. The historical roots of Russia are in today's Ukraine. The Orthodox Church has been the same until recently when the Ukrainian part split off. But there is also a Catholic Church in West Ukraine. Ukrainian and Russian are similar languages. However, in World War II, national extremists from Western Ukraine collaborated with German invaders and committed war crimes against Eastern Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles. The Ukrainian extremism survived even through the seven decades of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, it morphed into several political and paramilitary organizations and made a push toward the national Parliament. [3, 4]

The Azov Battalion, which has been cited in the context of defending the city of Mariupol, exhibits its Nazi leanings openly. It emerged during the 2014 Crimea crisis and then evolved into a regular regiment of Ukraine's army. (See the study by George Washington University's researcher [5]).  Such ultranationalist tendencies in Ukraine are denied in the Western media and politics, and "disproved" by the fact that President Zelensky is Jewish. Jewish or not, this rookie politician couldn't control who's got admitted into military and police schools, entered politics and business, or climbed the ranks in these domains. Of course, political extremism is Ukraine's internal affair, but it additionally indicates striking divisions in the country.

Ukraine is also a corrupt and criminalized country not much better than Russia. Since 2014, it has been in the upper third on the global index of corruption [6]. Corruption is the key topic in the satirical TV series Servant of the People, which features Zelensky before he's got into politics. The series made him a national celebrity. Then, Zelensky ran for the President's Office on an anti-corruption agenda and won in 2019. The corruption index didn't improve on his watch yet. Just like Russia, Ukraine also has billionaire oligarchs. Many display both business and politics in their biographies. Political posts provide opportunities for pocketing privately the foreign financial aid/investments and earnings from reselling stolen Russian oil and gas transported through Ukraine to West Europe.

Troubled as it is, Ukraine has a government (dissenting voices aside) that keeps the country on the collision path with Russia, a strategy with opaque goals and associations with national interests. Here lies yet another big trouble for Ukraine. 

Sabre Rattling

Western-leaning Ukrainians may see their NATO aspirations as a way of protecting the country's independence and territorial integrity. But the fact is that a country can be in the EU without getting into NATO (six countries in Europe so far). Why such an urge to get into this military alliance whose reason for existence and character are dubious?

After the collapse of East Europe's military block led by the Soviet Union, NATO was supposed to end since its adversary perished. West Europe was ready to establish its new, succeeding security forces. However, this instrument of America's hegemony survived because United Nations assigned NATO navy and air force missions in the Balkans, where the country of Yugoslavia disintegrated violently. NATO was further consolidated through aggressive operations in Bosnia and an air campaign against Serbia and Montenegro (the last remnant of Yugoslavia), which the alliance executed on its 50^th anniversary in 1999. NATO's attack was unprovoked and breached both the international law and its own original charter. NATO started growing just before this attack by incorporating a few countries in East Europe, and then it more than doubled in size by 2020. Outside Europe, NATO was involved in several offensive wars led by the US (Afghanistan, Libya, and partly Iraq). According to one American academic source, 387,072 civilians died in the US-led wars since 2001 [7].

NATO's increased operational presence in Europe, combined with the installation of new missile systems, resembles a disguised continuation of the Cold War against the old adversary, Russia. Current speeches of the American President sound just like that. A descendent from the Cold War era, President Biden simply can't shed off cold warrior feathers even in his advanced age. The die-hard cold warrior found his match in Russia's leader who also was shaped by the Cold War. Nevertheless, NATO poses a threat to Russia which has repeatedly voiced its displeasure with the alliance's enlargement and the prospect of having Ukraine as a large NATO country on its doorstep. Removing such a strategic goal from Ukraine's Constitution and politics could be part of the formula for peaceful coexistence of the two neighbors. The US, the UK, and Canada are not Russia's neighbors, yet these countries lead in tailoring Ukraine's relations with Russia. In effect, the conflict in Ukraine can be seen as a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Still, it is Ukraine that will have to share the border and trade with Russia forever. Bleeding to death on the battlefield is not a winning proposition. Instead of opting for a settlement outside the battlefield, and thus really saving Ukraine, its advisers and helpers are doing exactly the opposite.

NATO countries help Ukraine abundantly with weaponry, military intelligence, advice, and money. Ukraine's government takes it all, indebting future generations both economically and politically. It requests even more – direct military involvement of NATO against Russia. It's still opaque whether this is a genuine idea or is also externally inspired. This is where a serious problem lies with implications far beyond Ukraine's borders. As politicians' war mongering gets in tune with the media's spin on this war, the exposed spectators are being persuaded that a larger war is inevitable as a way of ending the currently limited war. Indeed, some Ukrainian officials appear to cheer that the Third World War has already started.

This lack of self-restraint, which all the war-mongering parties show, is as appalling as Russia's attack on Ukraine. If Russia felt threatened by NATO and intended to secure its border with Ukraine, it should have sought protection in a different way rather than by this conventional, massive military operation with highly destructive weaponry and urban warfare. Starting a war in the middle of Europe and possibly internationalizing it does create a highly risky path leading to a catastrophic nuclear war. That wouldn't be good for either side or for Europe as a whole. The responsibility of all the players in and around the Ukrainian war should be measured against the sanity of such an option.