Russian Aggression Against Ukraine in Donbass
Scenario:
Russian militarism – specifically Russian aggression against Ukraine in the Donbass Oblast – continues to escalate in 2018 and 2019, which necessitates a response from NATO (and therefore Canada) to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine and establish regional security.
Background
The Russian government possesses a reputation as a violator of international law and human rights. This perception of the Kremlin - which is linked to the realist political strategies employed by Russian President, Vladimir Putin - has been exacerbated in recent years by Russia’s growing militaristic tendencies aimed at strategic territorial expansion.[1] In addition to committing numerous human rights violations, Moscow has repeatedly infringed upon the sanctity of internationally recognized borders (most notably by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula).[2] Russian aggression against Ukraine beginning in 2014 marked the first instance since World War II wherein European territory was illegally annexed through the use of military force by another nation-state.[3] There was an immediate international backlash against Russia’s aggression within the international community. The United Nations, NATO, the G7, and the European Union all responded to Russia’s infringement upon Ukrainian sovereignty by condemning the blatant instance of military aggression in various international forums, and implementing economic sanctions to weaken the Russian economy.[4] Yet, Russian aggression against Ukraine has continued.
In 2014, in the aftermath of the Ukranian Revolution, armed men whose uniforms lacked military insignias crossed into the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine’s Donbass region.[5] These “little green men” (as they are known by locals) engaged Ukrainian forces in combat, sparking the so-called “War in Donbass.” It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt through various methods that these unidentified troops belong to the Russian military.[6] In recent months, a long stalemate which lasted throughout much of 2015 and 2016 was ended following a notable increase in Russian attacks on Ukrainian defensive positions. Due to the conflict’s recent escalation, there is no indication that the violence in eastern Ukraine will stop any time soon. Both locals and experts predict that Russian military involvement in the region will increase throughout 2018.[7] Many fear the complete annexation of the region by Russian forces (similar to the outcome of the conflict in Crimea).
February 28, 2014 - UN Security Council first meets to discuss Ukrainian issue
March 15, 2014 - US proposes UNSC resolution condemning Russian action in Ukraine (Russia vetoes)
March 16, 2014 - Crimea's referendum on secession is backed by 97% of voters (vote condemned as being illegitimate)
March 17, 2014 - The EU and US impose travel bans and asset freezes on several officials from Russia and Ukraine over the Crimean referendum
March 18, 2014 - President Vladimir Putin signs a bill to absorb Crimea into the Russian Federation
March 24, 2014 - G7 leaders indefinitely suspended Russia from the Group of Eight
March 27, 2014 - UN General Assembly adopts resolution condemning Russian action in Ukraine (Russia vetoes)
May 11, 2014 - Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk regions declare independence following illegitimate referendums
July 17, 2014 - Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 shot-down in Eastern Europe
July 21, 2014 - UNSC adopts resolution condemning the MH-17 flight incident and calls for an investigation
July 30, 2014 - G7 imposes further sanctions on Russia
July 29, 2015 - Malaysia proposes resolution calling for international tribunal to prosecute potential suspects in MH-17 incident (Russia vetoes)
Timeline
The War in Donbass has resulted in significant human rights violations throughout Ukraine. So far, the conflict has claimed approximately 13,000 lives, over 1.5 million Ukrainians have been internally displaced, and some 950,000 Ukrainians have fled abroad as a consequence.[8]
Connection to Canadian Foreign Policy
...Canada has a huge interest in an international order based on rules. One in which might is not always right. One in which more powerful countries are constrained in their treatment of smaller ones by standards that are internationally respected, enforced and upheld. The single most important pillar of this...is the sanctity of borders. And that principle, today, is under siege. This is why the democratic world has united behind Ukraine...
-Foreign Minister of Affairs, Chrystia Freeland
In an address to the Canadian House of Commons, Foreign Minister of Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, argued that Russian “military adventurism and expansionism” poses a blatant security threat to the rules-based international order in which Canada thrives.[10] To combat the threat of Russian aggression, Canada has played a significant role in the Ukrainian conflict up to the present day. In 2014, the Canadian Armed Forces launched two missions in Eastern Europe “to reinforce NATO’s collective defense…[and] show the strength of Allied solidarity [against Russia].”[11] In Operation REASSURANCE, a Canadian Maritime Task Force - on a single frigate - is participating in NATO military exercises in Latvia.[12] As part of Operation UNIFIER, a contingent of approximately 200 CAF military advisors are in Ukraine helping to ensure that it remains “sovereign, secure, and stable.”
Despite a significant financial contribution on behalf of the Canadian government, all of the resources which have been given to the Ukrainian Armed Forces thus far have consisted of non-lethal weaponry.[13] However, the Canadian government recently pledged its continued support to its ally by announcing that it will be extending its advisory mission in Ukraine into March of 2019.[14]
Key Decision-Makers in the Ukrainian Crisis
Vladimir Putin
President of Russia. Reputation for using hard-power, realist politics and aggressive expansionism. Known to be clever, deceitful, & violent.
Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada. Reputation as a liberal internationalist whose aim is to uphold a rules-based international order. Trudeau’s liberalism directly contrasts Putin’s realist approach to diplomacy.
Petro Poroshenko
Current President of Ukraine. He has pursued anti-Russian policies and has attempted to resist Russian aggression.
Viktor Yanukovych
Former President of Ukraine. He promoted pro-Russian policies while in power, and was consequently ousted in 2014. He is currently taking exile in Russia, as he is wanted by the Ukrainian authorities for high treason.
United Nations’ Response to Russian Annexation of Crimea
Acting on a letter from Ukraine that outlined the Crimean Crisis as a threat to its territorial integrity, the Security Council (UNSC) first met privately to discuss the issue on February 28th, 2014.[15] Initial action came in the form of a US-proposed resolution condemning Russia’s actions in Crimea, which was vetoed by Russia on March 15th without contest.[16] The Council has deliberated several times since, adopting one resolution to investigate the crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, and another calling for the implementation of the Minsk agreements. However, these UNSC resolutions accomplished little and were relatively insignificant.[17]
A similar proposal emerged in the General Assembly in the form of Resolution 68/262 which was adopted on March 27th, 2014.[18] According to the official UN press release, “In a vote that reaffirmed Ukraine’s unity and territorial integrity, the United Nations General Assembly today adopted a measure underscoring that the mid-March referendum in Crimea that led to the peninsula’s annexation by Russia has no validity and that the parties should pursue immediately a peaceful resolution of the situation.”[19] Though strongly worded, this resolution proved to be futile as it could not be effectively enforced. Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, once again utilized their veto (despite a stipulation included in the UN Charter which requires SC members to abstain in matters of which they are a party to the dispute in consideration).[20] Ultimately, without Russian consent, the United Nations can do little to solve either the situation in Crimea, or the escalating War in Donbass.
Case Study: Using Soft-Power to Deal With Russia Malaysian Airlines Flight 17
To demonstrate the failure of the United Nations and the UN Security Council in dealing with the Crimean Crisis, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is an exemplary case study. On July 17th, 2014, the aircraft was shot down by a missile launched from rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers and crew.[21] Despite the missile and mobile-launcher being of Russian origin, the Russian government has denied any involvement and has since denounced any findings as politically motivated.[22] In response to the incident, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2166 on the 21st of July, which condemned the downing of the flight and called for an investigation.[23] Over the course of the next year, the subject resurfaced on multiple occasions at the request of the Russians, who were closely monitoring the situation and wanted to be updated on any progress.[24]
Following a year of further investigation and consultation, Malaysia proposed a draft resolution calling for the creation of an international tribunal to prosecute potential suspects.[25] Again, Russia vetoed the resolution.[26] This incident demonstrates a clear human rights violation and breach of international law. Despite investigative findings which conclusively proved that Russians were involved in shooting down MH-17, the Council ultimately achieved nothing in its pursuit of the matter.
The inadequacies of the United Nations’ response, as well as the failure of the UNSC’s resolutions on Ukrainian territorial integrity and the Crimean referendum, strongly suggest that these soft-power mechanisms of global governance are doing little to solve Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine
G7 (Formerly G8) & European Union Response to Crimea Crisis
In March of 2014, G7 leaders indefinitely suspended Russia from the Group of Eight.[27] Further, they threatened “sectoral sanctions” which would target Russia’s oil and gas industries.[28] In July of that year, “coordinated sanctions” were implemented by the G7, which targeted specific companies in crucial sectors of the Russian economy.[29] In their own words, the G7 stated, “We believe it is essential to demonstrate to the Russian leadership that it must stop its support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine and tangibly participate in creating the necessary conditions for the political process.”[30]
The removal of these sanctions was tied to the successful implementation of the Minsk accords, which have since mostly been ignored.[31] In response, Moscow implemented sanctions of its own, and after a brief recession, its economy quickly rebounded.[32] Eastern Ukraine remains locked in a military stalemate, and the G7 has not yet been able to agree upon further sanctions for Russia.[33]
The European Union also took decisive action to combat Russia by imposing sanctions shortly after the outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict in 2014.[34] The scope of the EU’s sanctions has, on several occasions, been expanded to include additional sectors of the Russian economy.[35] Although these sanctions were somewhat effective in that they helped push the Russian economy into a recession, its return to economic growth indicates the inherent limitations of sanctions. Moscow has yet to budge in eastern Ukraine, and shows no signs of changing its aggressive militarism.
Recommendations for Avoiding a Policy of Appeasement
In order to deter future Russian aggression and uphold the liberal international order which benefits Canada, it is critical that the Canadian government use its influence in multilateral institutions to implement collaborative policies with other like-minded states. As has been shown, employing soft-power tactics against Russia has proven ineffective in halting its aggression. Therefore, in order to avoid appeasing Russia, Canada must ensure that a mix of both soft-power and hard-power tactics are applied (through mechanisms of global governance) to deter Russia from pursuing further military aggression in future, namely against Ukraine.
Going forward, the international community - specifically the Canadian government - should:
1) Strengthen Economic Sanctions on the Russian Economy
Ultimately, the international community has failed to achieve its desired result with the use of economic sanctions. To succeed in resisting Russian aggression, it may need to implement more hard-power tactics (specifically the application of military force). Although this approach alone has proven inadequate in deterring Russian aggression, it is critical that the international community continue to pressure Moscow with economic sanctions going forward. The damage caused by sanctions may not be immediately noticeable in the short-term. However, when used in combination with other strategies aimed at isolating Russia from foreign affairs, the gradual degradation of the Russian economy may subtly encourage Moscow to act within the parameters of international law.[36]
In her speech to the House of Commons, Chrystia Freeland repeatedly vowed to continue providing Canadian political and military support to Ukraine. Moreover, the Foreign Minister of Affairs reaffirmed the Canadian government’s commitment to the NATO alliance.[37] If, indeed, maintaining the integrity of Ukrainian sovereignty is a top priority for the Canadian government, it should use its influence in multilateral military alliances - specifically NATO - to deter further Russian aggression with hard-power tactics. The Canadian government has recently stated its intent to extend Operation UNIFIER (its mission into Ukraine).[38] It should do the same for Operation REASSURANCE (the Canadian military’s deployment to Latvia).[39] Moreover, it should expand the scale of these missions by sending additional military advisors to train the Ukrainian leadership, and by providing updated armaments (rather than just non-lethal equipment) to assist in updating the Ukrainian Forces’ Soviet-era weaponry.[40]
2) Extend & Expand NATO Mission in Eastern Europe
The illegal seizure of Ukrainian territory by Russia is the first time since the end of the Second World War that a European power has annexed by force the territory of another European country. This is not something we can accept or ignore...[41]
- Foreign Minister of Affairs, Chrystia Freeland
3) Incorporate Ukraine into the NATO Alliance
Following the formation of Ukraine upon the collapse of the USSR, NATO has maintained close relations with the former Soviet satellite state, which continue in the present day.[42] In order to protect Ukrainian sovereignty, the NATO alliance could deter Russian aggression by inviting Ukraine to be a member. If Ukraine was officially brought under the NATO security umbrella, the collective defense portion of the North Atlantic Charter (outlined in Article 5) would mean that an attack upon Ukrainian sovereignty by Russia would constitute an attack on all of NATO’s now 30 member-states. If Chrystia Freeland was genuine in her claim that “...NATO and Article 5 are at the heart of Canada’s national security policy,” the Canadian government should use its political clout in the NATO alliance to ensure that Ukrainian sovereignty is protected under this provision.[43]
The global community must maintain a united voice in the condemnation of Russian militaristic aggression and territorial expansion. Vetoed or not, the passing of resolutions with widespread support that are critical of Russia will continue to send a strong message to the Kremlin that the international community is united behind Ukraine. Canada, as well as other states around the globe, should attempt to anticipate further Russian violations of international law (specifically in reference to the sanctity of borders in Eastern Europe) and be prepared to retaliate in various multilateral forums, not just the United Nations. Introducing political sanctions - such as how the G7 suspended Russia - should also be implemented whenever possible. Canada was one of a handful of nations who first introduced the UN resolution condemning Russian intervention in Crimea; it must maintain this level of diplomatic involvement in the crisis. If utilized alone, combatting Russian aggression with soft-power tactics will continue to appease the Kremlin. However, isolating Russia in international institutions can tarnish its reputation, as well as limit its voice and influence on the global stage. Thus, soft-power efforts should not be abandoned, but rather used in combination with the aforementioned hard-power strategies.
4) Continue to Utilize Soft-Power to Condemn Russian Aggression
5) Actualize Justin Trudeau’s Feminist Foreign Policy in Ukrainian Peace Talks
Drawing from data gathered by UN Women, Justin Trudeau’s International Feminist Assistance Policy states: “It is estimated that in communities emerging from violent conflict, women’s participation in peacebuilding increases by 35% the probability that a peace agreement will last for at least 15 years.”[44] The situation in Ukraine is likely to provide the Trudeau administration with an opportunity to put its Feminist Foreign Policy into action through the formation - and subsequent implementation - of a peace agreement between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia. In future negotiations, Canada should make sure to send female gender advisors, experts, negotiators, and mediators in order to reduce the prevalence of white male leadership in the Ukrainian conflict, and thus increase the probability of securing a long-lasting peace deal between the belligerents.[45]