How the West Chose Ukraine (1/5)

The war in Ukraine continues to be at the center of a wide-ranging debate, fueled in part by near-daily bombardments targeting key nerve centers on both sides, and more specifically the Russian and Ukrainian capitals.

To better understand the various dimensions of this long-standing conflict, it is necessary to revisit the background and origins of what led to this (fratricidal?) war — examining the motivations and aspirations of the various parties involved, including the West (the United States and Europe, extended to all NATO member states with the exception of Turkey) — and also to recall the early stages of the Russian offensive and the failed attempts to achieve peace, or at least negotiations, bearing in mind that responsibility in this context is shared by many.

Jean-Patrick Dayras, Rear Admiral (ret.)

In a series of five articles, our contributor Jean-Patrick Dayras, a rear admiral in the French Navy, presents his vision and analysis of the issue.

To fully grasp the ins and outs of the various aspects of the war in Ukraine, some fundamental questions should be raised from the outset. What do Russia and Ukraine represent for the West? What might be the concrete consequences of a clear-cut victory by either of the two protagonists? And by extension, what would the implications be for the West and the Middle East?

Before addressing these different angles, an overview of the background and origins of this conflict is undoubtedly an essential starting point.

The trigger for the conflict was, to a certain extent, the Maidan movement, which was driven by Ukrainian youth. They perceived former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign the association agreement with the European Union in November 2013 as a betrayal of the direction they had hoped their country would take.

The main motivations of this younger generation at the time were: the aspiration for a higher standard of living; the building of a rule-of-law state; the fight against corruption; freedom of movement and the ability to travel, study, and work more easily in Europe; and the affirmation of cultural and political identity.

Part of the younger generation, particularly in western and central Ukraine, felt culturally closer to Europe than to Russia — unlike the eastern regions.

The country was therefore far from sociologically homogeneous. In this context, Maidan was a broadly popular movement.

The United States supported the Ukrainian opposition, both politically and by funding, over the course of many years, programs backing civil society, independent media, and democratic institutions. In the background, there were clear geopolitical interests.

Following Georgia and the Baltic independence movements, Russia had clearly signaled its leitmotif: "no further." Did the CIA — always highly active and frequently involved — support or provoke Maidan? It is possible, though not certain. The United States' track record since 1970 suggests it was not uninvolved. Russia portrays Maidan as a CIA-backed coup. That is not proof in itself. But it is possible — even reasonable — to think so.

European and American political leaders expressed their support for the protesters and for closer ties with Europe.

Moreover, Ukrainian media, social networks, universities, student associations, and civil society organizations — some of which received funding from Western sources or international foundations — played a significant role in this regard. Russia, for its part, was expanding its influence on economic, media, and political fronts in order to bring Ukraine into the Eurasian Economic Union.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire

After Maidan, relations between the two countries were radically transformed. The Yanukovych government fell in February 2014. A referendum was held in Crimea in March 2014, following which, given the outcome, Russia annexed the peninsula. This annexation has been condemned as illegal by a large number of UN member states, who deliberately overlook the history of Crimea's attachment to Ukraine.

In the spring of 2014, pro-Russian separatists — backed by Russia with financial support, weapons, and advisers — seized control of cities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the Donbass. Ukraine launched an operation to retake the occupied territories. The war on Ukrainian soil had begun. Initially, it was a civil war!

The Minsk Agreements (I and II)

The Minsk I agreement (aimed at halting the war in the Donbass) was signed on September 5, 2014, by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, the OSCE, and the separatists. However, the ceasefire was quickly violated and fighting resumed.

The Minsk II agreement was signed on February 12, 2015, by Petro Poroshenko, Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, and François Hollande. It provided for military and political measures, but their implementation was the subject of deep disagreements. Low-intensity fighting continued between 2015 and 2022.

The Minsk process officially remained the diplomatic basis for negotiations, but it was never fully implemented. Regarding this agreement, Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande subsequently made public statements — ones that did little credit to either of them.

In the wake of Maidan, Ukraine signed an association agreement with the European Union. It undertook reforms in the areas of justice, policing, and anti-corruption, with results widely considered mixed. It gradually deepened its cooperation with NATO without becoming a member. The first point, and especially the last, are fundamental and cannot be overlooked when examining the responsibilities of the various parties in this tragic conflict — one involving two countries that share deep historical ties with each other and with Europe, and which therefore cannot be viewed in the same light as other conflicts between rival nations with long-standing grievances.

The invasion and the Western response

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, with the stated aim of ensuring Russian security and protecting Russian-speaking populations in the eastern regions. This act of aggression is contrary to international law, all the more so given that Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Yet in invoking this argument, the United States and European countries failed to acknowledge their own wrongdoing — as reflected in their various behaviors and numerous harmful actions, particularly regarding the legitimacy of the change of power in 2014. This question remains the subject of intense political and historical debate.

The failure to acknowledge this wrongdoing amounts to a form of responsibility, if not outright culpability. Everything appears to have been premeditated and deliberate. Even today, this goes unmentioned by those who advocate for the eradication of Russia — and the word is not too strong — while speaking out about it in the West today is enough to invite accusations of being pro-Russian. Is this really how Western values are meant to be championed? Is this how enlightened peoples are supposed to be guided toward understanding world affairs — particularly European ones — and what is truly at stake?

Without delay, and under the influence of official "Services" and lobby groups opposed to Russia — particularly those within the European Union — Western populations rallied behind Ukraine. It is worth recalling that before 2022, various media outlets and news websites had conducted street interviews revealing that many people struggled to locate Ukraine on a map. Older surveys on geographical literacy had similarly shown that in several Western countries, a significant portion of the population had difficulty placing certain Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, on a map.

Following the Russian invasion, scientific polls focused on support for Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, arms deliveries, the reception of refugees, and fears related to the conflict. However, these polls did not address geography, nor the underlying causes of the invasion. This is yet another reason to question whether Western political leaders were genuinely trying to "bring down" Russia while concealing their true original intentions — namely, to tie Ukraine to Europe, and above all to NATO, at any cost.

The United States knew, or should have known, that this would constitute a casus belli for Russia. Following the independence of the Baltic states (1989–1991), and later in the wake of events in Georgia that led Russia to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states in 2008, Russia had made clear its desire to maintain buffer states shielding it from the West. Are the Western values so frequently invoked — yet never clearly defined — rooted in nothing more than a desire for revenge? A desire to punish Russia, the former USSR? That is hardly a vision for the future.

Many European countries have gone to war, fought one another, and mourned countless deaths across numerous battlefields. How did they nonetheless manage to make peace? Was Boris Johnson's credo that "the Russians must be eradicated"? It would appear so. On this occasion, Johnson displayed a hatred directed not just at Putin, but at Russians as a whole.

Yet a rapprochement between Russia and Europe had been considered during two distinct periods: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Yeltsin had sought to develop close ties with Western countries, and some European and Russian leaders had raised the possibility of deeper integration over the very long term; then in the early 2000s, under Vladimir Putin, relations with the EU were relatively constructive and grounded in a spirit of cooperation.

During this second period, discussions centered on a strategic partnership — not EU membership. From 1996 to 2022, Russia was a member of the Council of Europe, an organization distinct from the European Union, before being expelled following the invasion of Ukraine. Why, between 1996 and 2020, was no attempt made to grant Russia associated state status, as could similarly have been done with Turkey or Morocco? Where would we stand today — particularly given the rivalry between China and the West, which is already very much a reality?