Policy Paper on the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine - Book Report/Review Example

Policy Paper on the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine The prevailing conflict between Russia and Ukraine threatens the relative peace that the world has enjoyed since the end of the Second World War in 1945. Most of the world powers are choosing sides in the conflict and are already forming alliances and selecting sides. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has instigated the conflict between the USA and its allied nations and Russia. Observers have named the conflict as a ‘Cold War’, comparable to the one that existed in the twentieth century (Legvold, 74). This policy paper shall look in-depth at the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, while examining the origin of the conflict, the developments so far, the effects that the conflict has had on both countries and other countries and possible solutions to the conflict. Analysts consider the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as the result of the desire by the Russian leadership to rejoin the countries that once formed the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was once under the rule of a single party, the Communist party, which had its headquarters in the Russian capital of Moscow. The Soviet Union ceased existing in December 1991. By the time of its dissolution, many countries had become independent. The countries that came from the Soviet Union are Russia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The wider belief is that Vladimir Putin seeks the reunion of these states, and began implementing this plan by annexing Crimea, a province of Ukraine. The annexation happened during the transition period after the February 2014 ouster of Ukraine President, Victor Yanukovych. Many believe that Russia will soon push its territory to the entire Ukraine before conquering other countries that fell under the USSR (Legvold, 76). Supporters of the annexation of Crimea by Russia believe that the need to enlarge the jurisdiction of NATO led to the annexation. They view the annexation as a strategic move to protect Russian interests, considering the fact that Russia has never been a supporter of NATO and as such, has never been in support of the enlargement of the organization. Supporters of Russian in the conflict believe that NATO is under the control of Western states, which use it to achieve their selfish interests. It is imperative to note that 60% of the people living in the province of Crimea are native Russians (Legvold, 76). Since the Russian military went to Crimea and the annexation announced by the Russian president, many activities have taken place. To begin with, the conflict has led to a ‘cold war’, with Western countries taking a position to support Ukraine and vocally oppose the move by Russia to annex Crimea. The United Nations. The United States has openly condemned the actions of Russia. However, Russia has remained adamant by refusing to cease control of the province. This has led to Western countries, led by the United States, imposing sanctions on Russia (Legvold, 80). Legvold shares that Russia and the United States have a rather adversarial; terms. This clash is likely to lead to a shift in the globe’s political dimension, roping in countries like Japan and China, who also have plans to annex the Sinkaku Island, now under dispute. The United States has banned exports of civilian technology that has the potential to apply in the creation and development of military equipment to Russia. Further, the US has suspended cooperative activities between the US and Russian military, which include negotiations on missile defense. Also suspended is cooperation on nuclear energy projects, NASA-related cooperation and denied entry of Russian specialists to the Department of Energy’s laboratories. Allies of the United States like the United Kingdom and Germany have also supported calls for sanctions against Russia. However, the countries of the European Union have not implemented tough sanctions against Russia for fear of economic implications in the event that the economy of Russia collapses and the effects spill over into their countries (Mearshimer, 4). However, the greatest effect is the continued armament of both Western allies and Russia. Already, the United States and Russia have traded accusations, blaming each other for the stalemate (Legvold, 82). While no country has yet threatened military action against Russia, there is the fear that this conflict could lead to a global war when one of the NATO states, especially the United States, offers military support to Ukraine (Mearshimer, 6). Both Legvold’s and Mearshimer’s articles understand the depth of the crisis between the United States and Russia and the implications that this crisis will have on global politics and international relations. However, while Mearshimer believes the root cause of the conflict is the expansion of the NATO into Ukraine and that Russia is merely reacting to the effort, Legvold believes that the conflict is because of Russia’s annexation of Crimea through military means, which the US regards as repressive. Mearshimer posits that the efforts by the US to spread democracy across Europe threatened the political order of Moscow, which has opposed NATO expansion from the onset. With regard to the solution to the conflict, Legvold offers an extreme solution about the United States threatening and being ready to use military means to protect the interests of Ukraine, saying it will force Russia to abandon its plans of territorial expansion. Meashimer, on the other hand, proposes cooperation by both sides to create a neutral Ukraine, which allows the United States and its allies to improve relations with Russia and at the same time does not threaten Russia in any way. Meashimer proposes that the US and the West should rule out the expansion of NATO into Ukraine and Georgia and create a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia. The situation as shared by both writers provides a wide array of issues that caused and continue to fan the conflict. An intense look at the authors’ evaluation of the conflict offers a perspective of both the publicly held belief and the underlying issues in the conflict. Their expression of the conflict as it stands gives validity to the actions of both the West and Russia. The underlying causes of the conflict, from the two articles, are global economics and politics. In that regard, the political leadership of Ukraine would have consulted Moscow on their desire to join the NATO as a neighboring country. The United States and countries that support it should also relent in their efforts to spread democracy across the world. Countries such as Russia that have relatively not had democracy will be feel threatened by the new system and retaliate. This situation will only heighten the conflict between Russia and the Western countries. Concerning economics, Mearshimer shares that the United States’ new interest in Europe and Asia is about clipping the growth of China by developing other European and Asian countries to provide considerable economic competition. This position may hold. However, the United States should engage Russia for this strategy to work as opposed to viewing Moscow as an enemy. Works Cited Legvold, Robert. "Managing the New Cold War." International Affairs 93.4 (2014): 74-84. Print. Mearshimer, John. "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the Wests Fault." foreign affairs 1.1 (2014): 1-6. Print. Read More