Kost Elisevich

The European Union (EU) recently declared Russia to be a state sponsor of terror. Too often, a crime against humanity, though apparent for all to witness, is not universally condemned. Ulterior motives, less honorable, allow it to continue while the global community remains paralyzed by economic, geopolitical and legal deliberation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is such a crime. Acceptance of the current state-of-affairs appears to normalize the behavior of the perpetrator and to provide some justification for the offense. Of course, the notion that there is the remotest allowance for blatant criminality remains beyond the pale. Ultimately, those left to suffer are the aggrieved, those who survived the crime. The loss of life cannot be overcome. The kidnapping of children remains reprehensible and unforgivable.

The hatred will persist now for generations, more so than before. The will for Ukraine to continue resisting and to recover a way of life founded in its history, culture and faith cannot be denied. What remains are the material losses – those elements of life that allow for the resumption of a civil society in a country that simply wanted to continue its existence in a European community within which it felt it had a future.

Whether Russia, with its current regime, chooses to return to the global community at large as an honorable and well-meaning participant in global affairs or continues to be regarded as a pariah, remains largely at the whim of a single individual. At present, it appears he is incapable of backing away from a course upon which he has fatefully committed his nation. While the crime continues to unfold, a number of important issues regarding the background to the current conflict and the necessary reparations to follow have been debated recently and deserve review to begin setting a course for resolution.

The Blame

The primary offense here for which there has been no acceptable justification concerns the invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign nation, by a dominant regional autocratic regime, Russia. One need only refer to this singular issue to have the argument stand.

On three occasions, Russia signed agreements professing respect for the sovereign rights of individual nations to exist in peace within their determined borders. The United Nations Charter was the first of these in 1945. The second involved the Belovezh Accords in 1991, establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States which would replace the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The last was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 which involved Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Ukraine carried out its promise to eliminate all nuclear weaponry from its territory with assurances given for maintenance of its borders, its independence and sovereignty by the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom. In the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, Russia pledged, yet again, not to threaten any NATO or non-NATO nation although by 2004, it was meddling in the Ukrainian electoral process spawning the Orange Revolution and, by 2007, it was engaging in cyber attacks upon Estonia. In 2008, it invaded Georgia and, in 2014, it overtook Crimea. A highly questionable referendum in Crimea resulted in the sort of ridiculous outcomes seen only with Russian presidential elections. As is the custom with Russia, this was followed by the illegitimate annexation of Crimea.

The brutal conduct of the Russian invaders in Ukraine has been such as to invite prosecution for war crimes of which there are several – the massive displacement of the population; forced deportation; indiscriminate bombing of civilian establishments; intentional targeting of health care facilities and energy infrastructure; torture; mass executions; rape; kidnapping of children; confiscation of natural resources; and the theft of personal property. This is shameful behavior unworthy of any nation that professes to be regarded as civilized and certainly not one that seeks to justify invasion.

Despite Vladimir Putin’s declaration that Russia had accepted the geopolitical realities that came about after the dissolution of the USSR, that he would not occupy Ukraine and that he respected Ukrainian sovereignty, his intentions have proven otherwise. The disparity between what Putin says and what Putin does has been made perfectly clear once more with his annexation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions of Ukraine, much as he had done with Crimea.

Debate has arisen as to whether the West and, particularly the United States, should be held accountable for the chain of events leading to this catastrophe. The compulsion to assert blame here aligns with a sentiment expressed earlier by Russia that NATO had encroached upon its borders and that this was considered a threat to its security. It is certainly the case that the majority of eastern European nations along with the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have become members of NATO for reasons regarding their own security. Concerns had been raised over Moscow’s reaction to this. Some pundits have cited George Kennan, the American diplomat who, in the late 1940s, advocated the policy of containment of the USSR’s expansionist intentions leading to the adoption of the Truman Doctrine. Curiously, Kennan later warned that for NATO to extend its presence up to the border of Russia would be a mistake.

But Sweden and Finland, the latter with its 830-mile border with Russia, promising to join NATO appears barely to have raised an eyebrow in Russia. So, what of the argument regarding NATO encroachment? This seems to have faded as another failed attempt toward justifying an illegitimate war. What is clear here is the opposite claim that it is the desire of neighboring sovereign states to reject intimidation by an increasingly authoritarian and belligerent regime.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were the first of the Eastern Bloc nations to join NATO in 1999. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were admitted in 2004 as were Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russia, realizing the predicament, issued warnings to its previous Warsaw Pact member nations regarding such action but it was apparent to all that greater integration with Europe was desirable given past experience with a domineering Russia and the threat it could still pose. There was no coercion by NATO here. Russia had spent more time and energy during the Cold War conducting military or policing operations against its own Warsaw Pact members than elsewhere. Rather than consider this changing dynamic as reason to rethink Russia’s place within the European community, Putin hardened his stance when, in 2004, he saw Ukrainian sentiment swing toward the West and democratization.

Russian meddling in Ukrainian political and governmental affairs was well-entrenched by the time of the 2004 presidential election. The pro-Russian candidate, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions, was one such avenue of influence. Yanukovych was accused of electoral fraud resulting in national protest that came to be known as the Orange Revolution. This led to a second election that saw his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, become president. Yushchenko had suffered dioxin poisoning during the campaign, an event attributed, although not proved, to Putin. The habit of poisoning, however, has continued unabated as one of the more preferred methods of assassination by the Putin regime.

The United States, by that time, had advocated for democratic change but took no part in funding the opposition that stood against the pro-Russian faction. What it had funded through sponsorship by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy, over the course of several years, was support for the study of democratic processes, independent media, the conduct of free and fair elections and election-monitoring. It did this in concert with agencies in the EU. The support was entirely nonpartisan.

Where American meddling in the Ukrainian political scene would be seen subsequently, occurred with the hiring, in 2005, of Paul Manafort as a political consultant by the Party of Regions. Manafort would later surface as campaign manager for Donald Trump’s presidential bid. In his role as lobbyist for a pro-Russian political faction in Ukraine, he was charged with the task of converting Yanukovych’s image into that of a make-believe, pro-West democratic reformer. By then, Russian intelligence agents had become embedded in various Ukrainian governmental institutions with clear intentions of influencing pro-Russian sentiment.

The Party of Regions, recognized for its pro-Russian affiliation, also by then, was accused of becoming a “haven for Donetsk-based mobsters and oligarchs,” typical of what has been the case in the Russian political arena throughout Putin’s tenure. Manafort went on to orchestrate a smear campaign against Yulia Tymoshenko, the opposition leader in the 2010 presidential elections, accusing her party of encouraging antisemitism and committing murder. Moreover, a politically motivated criminal conviction of Tymoshenko for abuse of power and embezzlement led to a seven-year prison term. The European Court for Human Rights subsequently ruled that her arrest and conviction were unlawful. Yanukovych won the presidential election in 2010 on a platform that promoted entry within the EU.

The Yanukovych presidency was noted for his personal excesses, his denial of Stalin’s genocide in Ukraine of the 1930s, and finally, his failure to sign the Association Agreement with the EU in 2013. Although the latter offered considerable trade benefits with western Europe, including access to courts and banking systems, it was unacceptable to Putin and therefore untenable for Yanukovych. What followed was the Euromaidan Protest or the “Revolution of Dignity” as it came to be called. Yanukovych fled the country for Russia and the Ukrainian Parliament called for new presidential elections, as granted by their constitution.

Putin, of course, felt entitled to declare this matter a coup and, within two days, pro-Russian demonstrations were underway, Crimea was invaded by unofficial uniformed Russian troops and government buildings were overtaken. A similar process unfolded in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine within a matter of two months; this time with Russian-funded separatist forces supported by Russian units leading the effort. These events reflect deliberate meddling by Russia over time much in advance of Putin’s declared “coup.”

Perhaps, it’s time for Russia to reevaluate its place in world affairs and stop attempting to relive past glories or listening to autocratic leaders who promise to deliver the sort of glory that belonged to past centuries. Left untethered and unaccountable, Russia’s autocracy will continue its international thuggery with its familiar self-righteous rhetoric. It must be made to account for its egregious misdeeds as any criminal should be. Perhaps then, this particular lesson of history will have finally had its moment.

Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2022. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.