Russia may invade Ukraine Who will stop it?

The Western media has recently focused on the dangers posed by the Russian military threats to Kiev, especially after the information that Moscow sent military forces to the borders near its neighbor Ukraine.

And its readiness to launch one hundred battalions consisting of tactical groups with an estimated force of 175,000 men, along with tanks, artillery, and other equipment towards its neighbor. These developments come in parallel with sending more than 10,000 Russian soldiers to that region, in addition to military mechanisms and equipment to support the war games conducted by Russia in that region, which were described as a show of force and a message to those concerned.

At the level of psychological warfare, Russia made statements that it feels threatened by NATO maneuvers, considering that Ukrainian military reinforcements to defend its borders in Donbass are a dangerous adventure, and that any escalation from the Ukrainian side may eventually lead to the destruction of all of Ukraine, according to the Foreign Minister. Russian. The deputy head of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee noted that Russia does not consider itself at war with Ukraine, but “if we wanted to invade it, we would.” The Russian chief of staff also stated that any attempt to violate Russia’s borders would be deterred.

These Russian statements suggest that it is Moscow that fears a war against it at a time when it is massing a military force on the border with Ukraine. These statements can be understood as an attempt to justify any foreign military action rather than an expression of Russian fear of a non-existent threat against it. As for the countries directly concerned with the Russian escalation, such as the European Union and the United States, the response was lackluster and below the actual threat level.

Although the CIA estimated that Putin would invade Ukraine in early 2022, all the Europeans and Americans have done so far is to make statements, and in many cases refrain from making them for fear of a Russian reaction. US President Joe Biden said that he would "make it very difficult for Russia to invade Ukraine," noting that he is in constant contact with European allies and with Ukraine. As for Foreign Minister Anthony Blinken, he said that "any Russian attacks on Ukraine will result in economic sanctions that his country has not implemented before."

We understand from these statements that the Western response to the possibility of Russia invading a large and important country such as Ukraine may be limited to some economic sanctions that have proven to be ineffective in similar cases due to the retraction of them or the condoning of their breach or non-compliance by the concerned parties. Moreover, the credibility of the United States as a guarantor of the security of partners and allies has declined dramatically over the past years.

Regarding the Russian threats, for example, although small Georgia had inflicted heavy losses on the Russian forces during their attack on it in the South Ossetia war in 2008, it could not eventually withstand the influx of more Russian forces, especially since it was left alone at the time, and most What happened was the imposition of economic sanctions on Moscow, which did not deter it and did not lead to its withdrawal from Georgia, as regions of it (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) are still under Russian occupation after its division, and there are Russian forces in it.

In 2014, Russia returned the ball and this time occupied parts of Ukraine, and adopted the method of hybrid warfare in its operations and entered irregular forces without its insignia, and these forces seized government headquarters and strategic sites in the Crimea, and Russia ended up taking control of Crimea and annexing it to Its lands, and Russian irregular forces, along with Ukrainian separatist forces of Russian origin, remained in Ukrainian areas that they controlled from that time until today.

In 2015, Russia intervened militarily in Syria and prevented the fall of the Assad regime, and even supported it in its war against the Syrian people despite the American red lines that President Obama was periodically affirming. If we review these and other similar cases of Russia's military intervention in other countries, we notice clearly repeated trends in Russia's military actions and in the American and European reaction to these moves.

For example, Russia often moves militarily in critical geopolitical circumstances, especially when the US president is in a lame-duck situation, to prevent Washington from taking decisive action, assuming that the United States actually wants to. In addition, most of what the United States and its Western allies do in such cases are cosmetic sanctions with an openness to bargaining to satisfy the supposed opponent, in this case Russia. The basic idea behind this option is that reasonable compromises would convince Moscow that its decisions related to military aggression were not correct.

But the belief that making concessions to Russia or other countries (such as Iran) would persuade them to change their behavior or motives is dreamy at best, as is the belief that imposing cosmetic sanctions would prompt such These states have to back away from their policies. Ultimately, the fact is that Moscow has not backed down in Georgia, Ukraine, or Syria, and if it did decide to invade Kiev, a weak, divided Europe that relies mainly on Russia for gas supplies would not stand in its way. As for the United States, it has a history of abandoning allies and partners in times of need, especially if its interests were not directly affected.

Perhaps the escalation in the Gulf in 2017, represented by the blockade of Qatar, and the subsequent Iranian-backed attacks against Saudi Arabia’s strategic oil facilities, is an indication of the decline in the credibility of the United States as a guarantor of the security of its partners and allies in the region and the world. Washington has not responded decisively to any of these threats, and has subsequently abandoned its Afghan ally, former President Ashraf Ghani, and its haphazard and chaotic manner of withdrawal has sent negative messages about its ability to deal with daunting challenges beyond its borders.

Ukraine is in an unenviable situation, surrendering to Russia is out of the question, relying on the United States and the European Union does not satiate or satiate one’s hunger, as it is said, discussing its future membership in the European Union is a red line for Moscow, and Kiev’s development of deterrent capabilities in such circumstances is difficult. The irony is that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for Russian guarantees of non-aggression on its sovereignty and American security guarantees with support and assistance, but the Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea into Russian territory prove that force is the governing criterion in international relations, and that laws and treaties are not respected Except when the party involved is powerful.(Ali Baker)