A turning point in Ukraine war

"The move to annex could prove to be a dangerous ‘sharp-end’ in the war, with the probability that Moscow could turn to unconventional weapons, even nuclear equipment"

With the grand ceremony in St. George’s Hall of the Kremlin on September 30, 2022, wherein the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, representing 15% of Ukraine, was formalised through “accession treaties”, the Russia-Ukraine war has entered a new phase. Prior to it, on September 23, Russia had set in motion a series of referendums to be held in each of the regions. The five-day exercise resulted overwhelmingly in favour of annexation. According to Moscow’s claim, Zaporizhzhia’s pro-annexation votes were 93%; Southern Kherson’s 87%; Luhansk’s 98% and Donetsk’s 99.23%. Immediately afterwards, Ukraine dismissed the Moscow-managed referendum as “illegitimate”, being counter to the UN Charter and pronounced their right to reacquire the annexed territories. Impartial observers commented that the referendum was a replica of the pattern that Moscow followed in 2014 to annex Crimea, dispossessing Ukraine. The EU and NATO declared it a “sham” referendum in strong words; and the US branded it as “a complete farce”, but Putin had his way on the ground that the legal position had changed as per International Law.

The UN took no time in declaring the action as “illegal”, but Moscow paid no heed to it either. Brushing aside all the opposition, Putin emphasised during the annexation ceremony that “people made their choice” and “that choice won’t be betrayed” by Russia. The Russian president also accused the West that they had designed to convert Russia into a ‘colony’ and a ‘crowd of slaves’ which was not acceptable to his country. He categorically declared that the ‘annexation’ is a fait-accompli and will be out of the scope of any future negotiations. He also used the opportunity to clarify that Russia had no plan to return to the “Soviet Union” and they could not bring the past back. Later, Russian authorities openly warned that the newly-incorporated regions would be eligible for secure protection under Russia’s nuclear umbrella. It is commonly assessed that through his latest actions, Putin has actually ‘burned bridges behind him’, squeezing the options to wind-up the war and pushing the conflict into a “dangerous new phase”. Indifferent to his opponent’s hue and cry and apprehensions of political-military analysts, Vladimir Putin celebrated Russia’s victory in the Ukraine war at a “patriotic pop concert” in Moscow’s Red Square.

The pre and post-annexation developments have the potential to become a “turning point” in what is otherwise a stale-mated war. Some careful observers of global politics have observed that it is not as simple a case as it looks; basically, it is Russia’s latest endeavour to redraw the map of Europe, which will not be acceptable to the western powers, come what may. It has also been hinted that the move could prove to be a dangerous ‘sharp-end’ in the war, with the probability that Moscow could turn to unconventional weapons, even nuclear equipment. The US has paid back in the same coin by approving more military aid to Ukraine and sanctioning 14 international companies outside Russia for allegedly supporting Moscow’s military supply chains. The US Treasury department high-ups asserted that their measures would cripple Russia’s ability to procure foreign components and technology. The G-7 also announced imposing “costs” on any country that backs Russia’s decision to incorporate the Ukrainian territory. The icing on the cake is Ukraine’s submission of an application before the NATO authorities for “accelerated” membership of the military alliance. President Zelensky claimed that they had already “proven compatibility with alliance standards”. The decision is to be taken by all the 30 members with consensus; meanwhile, “practical and on-the-ground” support by NATO will continue.

US actions, however, have not been able to satisfy Ukraine’s leadership. In particular, Washington’s disinclination to fast-track its case for NATO membership has disappointed them. It will not be out of place to highlight that the cases of Sweden, Finland, Hungary, and Turkey have been in the pipeline at various stages. Parallel to it, in the UNSC, a resolution dated September 27 to condemn its annexation was vetoed by Russia, though the vote was 10-1 while four members (China, India, Brazil, and Gabon) abstained. During the proceedings, Russia once again stressed that the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO is one of its red-lines and reminded us that it was the principal reason for its invasion. The Russian mission to the UNO also accused the secretary general, Antonio Guterres, of violating the UN Charter with his anti-Moscow remarks. After the failure of the UNSC resolution, the US intends to table the issue before the UN General Assembly.

Putin accuses that the West organised blasts that caused multiple gas leaks on the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Europe. Russian shelling of a civilian humanitarian convoy in Zaporizhzhia wherein 25 died and 28 were wounded and the Russian government’s order for “partial mobilisation of troops” and “conscription” to enlist 300,000 additional troops also indicates the level of escalation hitherto unwitnessed during the 7-month-long conflict.

Keeping in view the above-detailed situation it can be safely concluded that NATO-Russia animosity has actually exacerbated. On the one hand, the US-led West is resolute to bring Russia to its knees; on the other hand, Russia under Putin is not in a position to get back as it would mean the end of his regime and possibly the disintegration of his country. It has become a life-and-death matter for both camps, and a win-win outcome apparently is not possible. Generally, back-channel diplomacy proves to be fruitful in such situations. However, there are no signs that this age-old instrument is in play somewhere. The only silver-lining in this otherwise bleak scenario was the Kremlin’s admission dated September 26 that ‘channels for dialogue at the proper level’ existed but they were of ‘sporadic nature’ and sometimes ‘emergency messages’ are also exchanged. Washington also hinted at occasional “private messaging”. IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi’s plan to visit Moscow to discuss nuclear issues is a positive development as well. The suggestion of Ramzan Kadyrov, Head of Chechnya, that “Moscow should consider using a low-yield nuclear weapon in Ukraine” is totally responsible. It is high time to resolve the issue wisely and cool-headedly because any carelessness can lead to a series of unimaginable consequences.

Comments are closed.