Fears have been growing that Russia is preparing to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Having amassed over 100,000 troops close to the border,
and imposing unacceptable conditions for de-escalation, there's a real worry that
Moscow could be about to initiate a dangerous new phase in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
But will it really risk an invasion?
Hello and welcome. If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an
informed look at international relations, conflicts, and the origins of countries.
One of the most important subjects in international relations is why,
when and how countries go to war.
Obviously, the decision to use armed force is not taken lightly.
The implications can be huge in all sorts of ways.
Aside from the military dimensions, there are also wider political,
economic, domestic and international factors that need to be considered.
Even if a war can be won relatively easily on the ground,
the broader effects can often prove to be extremely damaging.
The very notion of a pyrrhic victory -where a win comes at such a high cost
it effectively amounts to a defeat - plays a part.
A decision to take military action
needs to be weighed up against a complex range of costs and benefits.
The debate on whether Russia will launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine
is an important case in point.
Although Moscow has supported a separatist conflict in the country
that is now entering its ninth year, there's a sense that a new phase may be about to emerge.
With growing numbers of Russian forces on the border,
there are good reasons to suspect that Russia could soon order an attack.
But what are the factors that need to be considered in any such decision?
I've covered the background to the conflict in Ukraine
in a previous video, but by way of summary Ukraine lies in eastern Europe.
At 600,000 square kilometres, or
200,000 square miles, it is the 45th largest of the 193 members of the United Nations.
Its population currently stands at around 44 million.
According to the 2001 census, 78 per cent were ethnic Ukrainians followed
by Russians comprising around 17 per cent of the population.
To Ukraine's northeast lies Russia.
At 17 million square kilometers, or 6.6 million square miles, it's the world's largest country.
Its population currently stands at around 144 million.
The current crisis has its roots in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Following independence, Russia and Ukraine were left with several outstanding issues.
These included the stationing of nuclear weapons in Ukraine and the status that the Soviet fleet
in the Crimean Peninsula - a territory had been ceded by Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s,
much to the lingering resentment of many Russians.
In the end, the issues were resolved when Ukraine transferred the missiles to Russia
in return for a Russian guarantee to respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Later they agreed to divide the navy and Russia was granted control over the
port in Crimea until 2017, later extended to 2042.
While Ukraine joined the Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose
Russian-led organisation of former Soviet republics,
many Ukrainians pushed for closer ties to the West, including EU and NATO membership.
This came to a head in November 2013, when Ukraine's pro-Russian president blocked an
association agreement with the EU, sparking widespread mass protests.
As the president fled to Russia, counter protests arose in the Russian-speaking east and south.
This saw Russia invade and then annex Crimea and then support a
separatist insurgency in the two Russian-dominated eastern provinces - an area known as the Donbas.
Although several ceasefire agreements envisaged the departure of Russian forces in return
for decentralised power in the two regions, fighting continued in the years that followed.
By 2020, the conflict in east had cost around
14,000 lives and had seen one and a half million people displaced.
Meanwhile, Russia was not only cementing its control over the east by granting its
inhabitants Russian citizenship, it was also becoming more open about its wish
to ensure that Ukraine remain firmly within Russia's sphere of influence.
Against the backdrop of a significant troop build up on the border, the Russian president,
Vladimir Putin, published an essay insisting that Russians and Ukrainians were one people
and that "the true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia."
This was further confirmed in December 2021,
when Moscow presented the United States and NATO with two draft treaties.
As well as outlining terms for a new security relationship, the text called on NATO to
stop any further expansion, including to Ukraine or any former part of the USSR.
This was immediately rejected by NATO,
which insisted that membership is a matter for the organisation and applicants.
In the meantime, the Russian buildup has continued.
Latest estimates suggest that there are now around 120,000 troops within 200 kilometres,
or 120 miles, of the border.
This has prompted widespread fears that Russia may now be on the verge of an invasion.
Of course, many have dismissed all this as a
bluff; arguing that we've seen this sort of posturing before.
But it's also worth noting that the context has changed.
The explicit statement arguing that Ukraine's future is tied to Russia,
and the direct call for NATO to avoid any expansion into the former Soviet Union,
appears to signal an increasingly strong Russian resolve over Ukraine.
Given that NATO has rejected these calls, it may now be difficult for Russia to back down.
But what would Russia really hope to achieve by invading? c
Clearly this is no longer just about protecting ethnic Russians in the east.
This may have been an objective back in 2013,
but Moscow now controls the key ethnic Russian districts.
Any further expansion will be into areas predominantly inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians.
While this might support the argument that Russia is really trying to control Ukraine as a whole,
it isn't obvious how this would actually further that goal.
A full occupation of Ukraine seems out of the question.
The military, economic, political and diplomatic
costs of taking and holding the entire country would be enormous.
Meanwhile, a partial invasion
would merely make the rest of the country more anti-Russian than ever.
Likewise, the argument that it's about controlling NATO's expansion also has its flaws.
While Moscow views NATO as a threat, and has long argued that NATO promised not
to expand into the former Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War,
an invasion wouldn't necessarily change the current situation.
While NATO might indeed be hesitant to import such a major conflict into the alliance,
most observers point out that while NATO offered Ukraine the prospect of membership in 2008,
this has long since ceased to be a realistic prospect.
But even if an invasion were to effectively end hopes of NATO's
enlargement into Ukraine, it may encourage it elsewhere.
Notably both the president and prime minister of Finland, a neutral country,
have hinted that membership may be on the agenda if Russia were to act in Ukraine.
Given Finland's 1300 kilometer or 840 mile border with Russia, Russia would face more NATO not less.
But perhaps the most plausible objective for any invasion would be not only to stop NATO's
enlargement to Ukraine but also to secure Russia's hold over the territory it already controls.
By invading a large part of eastern Ukraine,
Moscow may try to leverage this to formally secure Ukraine's acceptance of
Russia's annexation of Crimea and perhaps gain the formal transfer of the Donbas.
Even if that doesn't happen immediately, Russia would nevertheless see it as sending
a powerful message about its place in the world and its willingness to act in its own interests.
But assuming this is the rationale for an invasion,
there are many other factors that need to be considered.
Most obviously, there's the military risk.
On the face of it, Russia would seem to be in a commanding position.
Its forces vastly outnumber those of Ukraine.
That said, Kyiv has significantly improved its military capabilities since 2013.
To this end, observers have suggested that the successful invasion would seemingly require
greater Russian numbers than have already been assembled.
As for direct outside support for Ukraine, this would be limited.
While many countries will voice their strong support for Kyiv, none will fight for it.
The prospect of going to war with Russia
is seemingly out of the question for NATO - and Moscow knows it.
That said, NATO has insisted that any further aggression against Ukraine
would have "massive consequences and would carry a high price"; a point reiterated by
the European Union and by US President Biden in a conversation with Putin on 30 December 2021.
The question then is what this would likely mean in real terms?
At a political level, the effects of an invasion would be mixed;
but perhaps not as grave as one might imagine.
As a veto wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council,
it would face no formal UN Security Council resolution against its
actions - although there may well be one from the General Assembly.
Of course, any action would lead to further political estrangement from the West,
but Russia has already drifted away from Europe and the United States.
Meanwhile, many other countries would be ambivalent about taking tough action.
Russia still has a lot of influence and has proven to be very adept at
leveraging its capabilities for maximum geopolitical advantage.
In this sense, President Putin may feel that he can bear any new political costs.
Ultimately, EU and NATO action will be most effective in the economic sphere.
But, again, this might not be as effective as one imagines.
Many steps have already been taken since 2013.
The EU and US have imposed sanctions across a range of areas.
But there are still other areas that could be targeted.
The one area where seemingly decisive action could be taken is energy.
Europe is a key market for Russian natural gas.
But even here the effects may be more limited than people realise.
Russia currently enjoys record gold and foreign exchange reserves.
This has given it a huge war chest to weather the immediate consequences of any further sanctions.
Putin will also know that such a step
would have a huge effect on already high energy prices in Europe.
This will carry a major domestic political cost for western countries.
Another option would be to make a decisive shift away
from Russian energy sources in the longer term.
One frequently made suggestion - including most recently by
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken - is that Germany councils Nord Stream 2;
a gas pipeline that will bypass Ukraine and link Russia and Germany.
While this would certainly hit Russia hard,
especially as Germany is Russia's largest market for natural gas, it wouldn't do so immediately.
In the meantime,
any cancellation would raise concerns about Europe's longer-term energy strategies.
While the United States may see this as a point of leverage over Russia,
Moscow and many in the EU instead see the project as a point of Russian leverage over Europe.
So, will Russia invade?
In truth, we just can't say.
In some senses, an invasion could certainly meet its goals.
It would almost certainly deter NATO enlargement to Ukraine.
It could also provide leverage to secure the gains that Russia has already made in the east
and send an important message about Russia's resolve to the world .
And while the military cost of an invasion could well be high,
Russia will know that external intervention is all but impossible.
Ultimately, it comes down to what Russia wants to achieve and whether it feels it
can ride out the longer term political and especially economic effects of an invasion;
effects that, in truth, aren't perhaps necessarily as serious as many would think.
In this sense, the threat of an invasion would seem to be very real indeed.
But, even if Russia holds off for now, and current diplomatic efforts to de-escalate
the crisis are successful, one gets the sense that the possibility of eventual military action
will remain a very real prospect for the foreseeable future.
I hope you found that useful. If so, here are some more videos you might find interesting.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.