19 April 2022, NIICE Commentary 7824
Govind Nelika

Introduction

On 24 February 2022, United Nations Secretary-general António Guterres urged Russia to “Give peace a chance” and the council was informed that “authorities of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics” had requested military assistance from Russia. Tensions grew as Moscow ordered Russian troops to move Luhansk and Donetsk, regions situated in Eastern Ukraine under the control of Russian separatists. Russia justified its actions by stating that the troops were dispatched for peacekeeping purposes on request of leaders of said regions. Same day Vladimir Putin televised Moscow’s decision to authorize deployment of Russian military forces to “maintain peace” in Eastern Ukraine, even though the Security Council preceded with a resolution demanding an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine, eleven of the Council’s fifteen members voted in favor of the resolution. At the same time, China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained. On the other hand, Russia utilized its right to veto the resolution. The crisis between Russia and Ukraine had been ongoing far well before 2022. Tensions between the two nations escalated from 2014 onwards, needless one points out Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear in his statement “consequences you have never seen”, a warning to the NATO alliance that any action on their part would escalate into use of nuclear weapons.

Background of the Russia-Ukraine Ear

Although the ongoing crisis resulted in a full-fledged invasion, the roots however can be traced from 2014 onwards, when Russia annexed Crimea, citing protection of Russian speaking natives residing in the area. Although an act of aggression, the annexation became formal after the citizens of Crimea voted to join the Russian federation. Later on at the start of 2015 February, the Normandy four, France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine attempted to broker a cease-fire in succession to signing the second Minsk accords. The accord stressed on a) de-escalation of Military skirmishes in Donetsk and Lugansk regions; b) to engage an inter-rim government in areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, c) the reinstatement of the Ukrainian border among the disputed regions and d) to grant pardon to all parties involved in the incidents of the disputed regions.

Although both Russia and Ukraine seemed interested in maintaining peace, Russia’s reluctance to legitimize Ukraine’s sovereignty and use of the Minsk agreements of September 2014 and February 2015 as a perpetual tool to control Ukraine ultimately led to the accords being a failure. A prime example is when Ukraine had to conduct elections in occupied Donbas before reclaiming border control. The result would be destabilized government that would, in turn, work in favor of Russia. It was merely a matter of time before the differences between the two countries blew out and Ukraine seem to curry favor the west and the NATO alliance.

According to the Bloomberg News transcript of Vladimir Putin’s televised address dated 24 February 2022, Putin acclaimed Russia’s military action in Ukraine is to maintain peace and de-Nazify Ukraine. He further went on by stating Ukraine is an illegitimate “Anti-Russia”. Putin’s televised transcript of Bloomberg gives clarity of Moscow’s intention on Russia-Ukraine conflict. “The leading NATO countries support the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely choosing to reunite with Russia. They will undoubtedly try to bring the war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbas, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions”. He further added, “NATO expansion and Western influence were part of Moscow’s rationale, but so too were humanitarian concerns—specifically, to combat far-right nationalism and neo-Nazi extremism in Ukraine and to stop Ukraine’s genocide of ethnic Russians”.

From the above excerpts, it is pretty clear that Russia has had Ukraine in its sights for some time now. The Rhetoric model employed by Russia has been a prevailing one. A similar pattern of behavior on Russia’s part was seen when they invaded Georgia in 2008, where Georgia had been promised a NATO membership. Moscow’s response was to occupy Georgia, claiming Human rights violations and other rhetoric. The same pattern has been preceding in the case of Ukraine, while parts of former Georgia are under Russian occupation. Furthermore, the highlight that Ukraine in a Nazi dominant nation would be ludicrous since the present president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is of Jewish descent, and he won the Presidency with a landslide victory of 73 percent.

The Cascading Effect

Russian Federations invasion of Ukraine is an international incident. The act, however, has set into motion a cascading effect on the global community, such as the impending food crisis that the Russia-Ukraine conflict has invoked. According to the World Food Programme (WFP) report, Russia and Ukraine together supply 30 percent of wheat and 20 percent of maize to global markets. Moreover, they play a crucial role in exporting sunflower oil and barley, accounting for more than three-quarters and one-third of supplies to international markets, respectively. The current Ukraine-Russia crisis has practically frozen the grain exports of both countries, which in time will affect the global markets. The WFP estimate an increase in surge prices of costs of WFP food procurement by around USD 23 million per month, and countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh would be affected the most because of their dependency on wheat, and they import wheat from Russia and Ukraine. As evident from the export flow, if the Russia-Ukraine crisis continues, it may well induce a global food shortage, not just in terms of wheat but other food stock as well.

Conclusion

The Russia-Ukraine crisis is ongoing, and if international community fails to peace between the two countries, a severe food crisis will occur, forcing a price hike on various commercial products and foodstuffs, not to mention what it would mean for third world countries which rely heavily on the export of aforementioned foodstuffs. Even after UN bodies have issued threat reports on the impending effect of the ongoing war, and the UN secretary-general has called upon its members to mitigate the impact, the matter is escalating. Instead of employing diplomatic measures, UN General Assembly has voted to remove the Russian Federation from UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the resolutions received a two-thirds majority of those voting, minus abstentions, in the 193-member Assembly, with 93 nations voting in favor and 24 against. The General assembly may remove Russia from UNHRC but as long as the Veto provision of P5 members exist, Russia can always veto any resolution against it. Quoting Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his address to UN, he called the Security Council to remove Russia from UN bodies, so that Russia can no longer veto itself and if that was not feasible, Zelenskyy called for the dissolution of UN itself as the body could only engage in dialogue and failed to take actions.

The war between Russia-Ukraine has caused price hikes has begun to take effect. For instance, Chris Nikoi, Regional Director for Western Africa said, “Soaring food and fuel prices will not only put millions at risk of hunger; they are also forcing WFP into an impossible situation of having to take from the hungry to feed the starving.” If the situation persists and the United Nations fails to take a judgment call, the cascading effect of this would be catastrophic. It would end up imposing considerable strain on third world countries and no singular organization could solve the matter then.

Govind Nelika is Project Fellow under UGC-SAP DRS II at the Department of Politics and International Studies, Pondicherry University, India.