Gelisim News

The tension between ‘’Russia-Ukraine tension is in the benefit of the NATO’’

The Academic Member, Dr. Bahlul Aliyev, who is the Sociologist and International Relations Specialist at the Faculty of Applied Sciences of the Istanbul Gelisim University and evaluated the possibility of conversion of the tension at the frontier of Ukraine and Russia, said: “The tension may arise in case no reciprocal concessions are made”.

Dr. Bahlul Aliyev, who emphasized that the current status of the border tension consisted of a show of strength (big stick) and maintenance of their reputation, further added: ‘’The military tension had never arisen as high as current period in Europe since the end of the Cold War. The cause lying behind this was that the parties related thereto had an anxiety of reputation for the first time in a serious manner. The West did not support Ukraine seriously at the war that has been experienced with the separatists, supported by Russia during the years of 2014-2015 and annexation of Crimea. The sanctions, put into force against Russia, have been far from being a deterrent factor for it. This laid a foundation for Russia to take an aggressive stand in future time. Since the current circumstance is more complex than the past, various developments are experienced in an unpredictable manner. This aspect turned into a matter of reputation from the point of view of both powerful centres. The tendency of the standing point of the parties not to be the first one to step back has been deepening the problem more and more.’

“CLAIMS APPEAR TO BE UNACCEPTABLE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PARTIES”

Mr. Aliev, who said that while the NATO and Russia being the parties of the tension have been trying to find a diplomatic settlement, the claims, transmitted to each other, have been unacceptable for both of them, kept on making his point as follows:

‘’While the NATO and Russia were making a show of strength as a result of a kind of reputational strength, the traffic of diplomacy continues on the other hand. The claims of NATO from Russia are examined under the topics of the NATO-Russia and Russia. The most attention-drawing articles among the NATO-RUSSIA calls are to reshape the inter-governmental relations anew, to notify the parties concerned about the (military) exercises, to bring the space threats to minimum levels, to return to the Vienna format and not to intervene in the foreign policy of other countries. Those of claims, required from Russia on unilateral basis, have been gathered under the following topics: to withdraw its army from Ukraine, Georgia and Moldavia, and not to exercise aggressive rhetoric and power against other countries, and to withdraw from military expansion against Ukraine, and to restart negotiations with the USA about the nuclear weapons, and to waive from the anti-satellite tests. The fundamental claim of Russia from the NATO is the non-expansion of it in a manner to comprise the countries of the Post-Soviet bloc, and withdrawal of the medium-range missiles from the Eastern Europe. The acceptance of such claims by both sides appears to be not possible under the current circumstances. The military exercises, carried out by Russia together with Belorussia on the Ukrainian frontier, were evaluated by the Western countries as a preparation for the invasion of Ukraine. Notwithstanding that Russia called such accusations as a political hysteria, the constructive diplomacy has been interrupted upon statement by the President Putin on 15^th of February having said that Russia will act along with the developments.’’

 “A DIPLOMATIC SETTLEMENT CAN ONLY BE POSSIBLE BY RECIPROCAL CONCESSIONS”

The Academic Member, Dr. Bahlul Aliyev, who emphasized that the parties were in the search of a diplomatic settlement and that such settlement would go through reciprocal concessions, kept on making his comment as follows: ‘’The current threat is directed against Ukraine. It appears that the NATO has selected Ukraine as a showdown polygon with Russia. When we look at the current aspect, it is possible for us to say that there has not been any serious deal of military aid, provided by the West to Ukraine. Some shoulder-launched missiles such as NLAW, Stinger, Javelin on so on, donated by various countries to the Ukrainian army, are far from being sufficient to stop the Russian forces. The threats for sanctions, brought forth by the USA and European countries, cannot be a deterrent factor for Russia either. Russia has already had the experience of busting the sanctions from now onward. The only reason for the non-realization of the intervention is the abstention of Russia to be able to keep the region under control for a long period of time after the occupation. The moves that will deter the invasion of the Russia of Mr. Putin having emphasized that they did not want war in Europe could be reciprocal concessions.’’

“RUSSIA QUESTIONS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE STATE OF UKRAINE”

Mr Aliev, who said that Russia discusses the legitimacy of the statehood of Ukraine basically, used the wordings as follows: ‘’Mr. Putin repeatedly indicated at several platforms that Ukraine is not a legitimate state and that was the result (product) of wrong boundaries, drawn by Lenin. From the point of view of this perspective, Russia cannot take the risk of losing any of the Post-Soviet countries. He especially regards the departure of Ukraine from the political orbit of Russia as a national security problem. When these circumstances are taken into consideration, it is difficult to say that Russia will abandon Ukraine without making concrete steps.’’

“THE CONTINUATION OF CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY IS IMPORTANT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF GETTING THE TENSION UNDER CONTROL”

The Academic Member, Dr. Bahlul Aliyev, who drew attention to the fact that another step was made towards a diplomatic settlement while the risk of attack by Russia continues, finalized his comment on the subject matter as follows:

‘’The negotiations, held with the Prime Minister of Germany, (Mr.) Olaf Scholz, have been promising and encouraging. While Russia withdrew two divisions from the border, a positive step had been made by the opposite side. The statement, made by the German Chancellery having said that they planned the continuation of the natural gas flow through Ukraine and had no agenda on the further expansion of the NATO, may be evaluated as the aforementioned reciprocal diplomatic concessions. Within this scope, it is necessary to continue this traffic of diplomacy for the security of Ukraine and consequently, of Europe.’’