Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit; Moscow’s concerns are legitimate

____________________

OPINION

By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

The latest meeting between President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, in what is now known as the Alaska summit, was costly because of the security logistical setup and the backstage diplomatic efforts that saw the event through, but didn’t yield much. The 2025 Alaska summit could be the start of a series of efforts that finally bring a freeze to the situation in Ukraine.

To understand why, in the first place, Russia initiated its special military operation in Ukraine, we have to go back in time; we can even go back a thousand years, but today we shall dwell much on the last three decades, after the breakup of the USSR in 1991. The USSR was a formation of multiple ethnic states, which were called Republics, and Ukraine was one of them. Its end is considered to be a geopolitical tragedy, and that is the view of the current Russian President.

Russia didn’t wake up and just decide to invade Ukraine in 2022, with no reason. For Moscow, the move was very much about offensive realism, which is basically the amassing of power and regional dominance because of the prevailing uncertainty and threats of an anarchic international system where the survival of a given country is the most important thing.

Russia is compelled to seek regional hegemony to ensure its safety, according to John Mearsheimer. This is supposed to be a constant endeavour of strategic miscalculations that will bring about conflict and war at certain points, especially when great powers are involved. In this case, it’s Russia on one side and the USA and its allies on the other.

Since the end of the Cold War three decades ago, Moscow views NATO’s eastward expansion as a real threat to its security, in the last decade and half, the political power centers in Kiev along with Washington and Brussels have been flirting about Ukraine joining the security organisation which was a clear Red line for Russia, and they were not going to stand by as their core security interests were being teased. The provocation was an encroachment on Russia’s sphere of influence. It was uncalled for because after the end of the Cold War, there was a promise in place that NATO would never expand “one inch eastward.”

Russia is in Ukraine to protect the Russian-speaking population. It's no secret that there are neo-Nazi activities; during the conflict, military units have come out with Nazi insignia and flags fighting on the side of Kiev. Russia accuses these groups of persecuting the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas regions.

The international community, which is made up of the West, took clear sides when it came to internal divisions within Ukraine. Washington supported Ukrainian-speaking people and sidelined the other side, an act that exacerbated the situation, prompting Russia to come in and take its side.

According to Professor Jeffery Sachs, Washington’s disdain for historical and cultural claims of the European plain made it clear that only a military act would make Russia’s point. For example, Russia’s ties to Crimea, which had been a Russian territory since 1783 and only transferred to the Ukrainian Republic under the USSR as a symbolic move aimed at nation-building in 1954. These historical nuances that were stubbornly ignored only fired up Russia for war.

For Russia, going to Ukraine is an act of resistance against Western unilateralism and Washington’s blunt imperialism. It’s one of the reasons even those who have taken a neutral position have a soft spot for Moscow. The West has consistently violated international norms from the far East in the case of China and Taiwan, to the Middle East when it comes to Iran, Iraq, among other states.

Washington thrives in overthrowing governments and while expanding military alliances at the same time, ignoring regional powers like Russia. Of course, any country would react in a self-interest manner.

The situation in Ukraine goes back years; it goes beyond 2014, when Russia decided to take back the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, its strategic base for its naval power and the adjacent waterways that connect it to global trade. It goes beyond the 3 years of the full-scale military operation, even the fall of the Soviet Union was just a flash point of previous centuries.

It’s geopolitical and geoeconomic, and that’s why it has led to several global shock waves that are being felt even as far as here in Uganda. Since February 2022, the world has experienced shifts in alliances. Here in Africa, there is pressure to align with the West at a time when neutrality is vital for peace.

Since Ukraine was a major global food basket, the war meant they had to halt agriculture, and this has affected the world's food security, bringing about shortages and price hikes. Western sanctions on Russia have had a ripple effect on the world energy markets taking which has resulted in higher fuel prices across the planet. Like any conflict, there is a humanitarian and migration issue in Europe, and because it’s affecting people with white skin, they have taken priority over others in conflicts across the world.

Before this escalation, Europe had not faced war at this scale since 1945, a disaster that had engulfed the whole world, that bit had ended and just like then, even this episode can end. If the West was pragmatic, they could have avoided this all together. Professor Yanis Varoufakis has always suggested a Good Friday Agreement-like mode for the Donbas with shared sovereignty and guarantees for both Russian and Ukraine speakers, he also in the past advocated for a neutral Ukraine under a UN backed treaty that may see peace keepers from countries like the UK and China maintain the agreed Red Lines.

Before 2014, if only the West was wise to halt the NATO expansion which is about buying American weapons, Respecting the Minsk Agreement that promoted the autonomy of the Danbas, if only the Washington through the CIA had avoided overthrowing Yanukovych which was a hostile move towards Russia.

If only the West had seriously respected the diplomatic path to address Moscow’s legitimate grievances, the world would have never seen this disaster happen. In the event that President Trump, in his quest for a Nobel Peace prize managed to get a deal with his Russian counterpart it will be only on the grounds of Russia’s original reasons for the escalation.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre