The temperature has been steadily rising over the stand-off between Russia and NATO/EU/US over Ukraine’s signalled intent to become a member of NATO. Russia claims that NATO is a Cold War, obsolete institution; yet given NATO/EU’s steady eastward absorption of the USSR’s ex-members and Comintern, it is defining them as an enemy to be contained. This situation was exacerbated by Russia’s claim that the US broke an agreement not to base missiles in Turkey and Romania.
The Russians have massed troops on the eastern Ukraine border for months and supported an uprising in the contiguous provinces of Ukraine where large numbers of Russians reside. An invasion by Russia has been predicted by US President Joe Biden. However, the Russians have vehemently denied such plans. The military stand-off is amplified by US’s concerns about the increased leverage Russia would be in a position to apply to the members of NATO through the supply of natural gas that is critical to EU members surviving their brutal winters. At this point, it appears to be a game of chicken with each side expecting the other to blink first.
For the rest of the world, however, the situation is very alarming, since these countries are not just rattling sabres but nuclear weapons. It was not very comforting to have Russian President Vladimir Putin oversee nuclear exercises in his country two days ago. While it may appear that the feared Russian invasion and Western response is quite remote from Guyana, the Russians have already threatened that if the US and NATO do not appreciate its strategic concerns of encirclement, it may respond in kind in America’s backyard as it did during the Cold War with its missiles in Cuba – by now arming Venezuela. The US has made no secret of its desire to see the back of the leftist Maduro regime and has imposed sanctions on that country for its anti-democratic actions against its citizens. During this stand-off, the Russians have been one of the staunchest supporters of the Maduro regime, as they were of Castro’s in the 60s.
But as war drums intensify, the question is: what has the Security Council of the United Nation that was formed to deal with such contingencies, been doing? After all, the Security Council is empowered to impose binding obligations on the 193 UN Member States to maintain peace. The Council’s five permanent and 10 elected members meet regularly to assess threats to international security, including civil wars, natural disasters, arms proliferation, and terrorism.
The dilemma, of course, is that Russia and the US are two of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council with veto powers on the decision-making process. However, the Security Council did meet at the end of January to “deescalate” the crisis. What actually happened was that each of the parties simply reiterated their position. Under Secretary General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo emphasised that “any escalation or new conflict would deal another serious blow to the architecture so painstakingly built up over the last 75 years to maintain international peace and security”.
The US Representative to the UN warned that Russia’s action “not only threatens Ukraine, it threatens Europe and the international order. If Russia further invades Ukraine, none of us will be able to say we didn’t see it coming. And the consequences will be horrific, which is why this meeting is so important today.”
Russia’s Ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia denied once again that his country had any plans to invade Ukraine, accusing the US of calling the meeting to “whip up hysteria. We just don’t understand what we are discussing here today and why we are indeed here.”
The Ukrainian Representative promised, “Ukraine is not going to launch a military offensive, neither in Donbas nor in Crimea, nor anywhere else. Ukraine sees no alternative to peaceful resolution of the ongoing conflict and restoration of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The UN Security Council a must do better.
