The Ukrainian Crisis: The Causes, the Repercussions and the Future.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Arkan Ibrahim Adwan. College of Law and Political Sciences - Department of Political Sciences.

     The issue of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is no longer a limited war or regional crisis between two neighbouring states, but it has become a global crisis in terms of current and expected repercussions, and in various sectors of security, politics, global energy security and even food security. This is  due to the dependence of many countries in  large proportions on Russia to meet their needs of basic energy sources and the dependence of many countries on basic food prices that are affected by the war in Ukraine.

     Thus, the Ukrainian crisis is a multi-repercussion global crisis, and all possibilities are present when predicting the course of events, whether in terms of ending the ongoing war, or even turning it into a third world war. Therefore, following up on the developments of the crisis calls for answering many questions, perhaps the most important of which are, what are the causes of the crisis in the first place? To what extent can the Russian side continue to continue, escalate and resist Western pressures? What is the prospect of a solution to the crisis that is affecting important sectors of all countries of the world? Whether  working  on  the situation that will not  develop into an open world war, or even its implications for global energy security or even food security?

     There is no doubt that the current crisis is not sudden or unexpected because of Ukraine's position on the Russian side, as it is of exceptional importance in russia's national security strategy, in which the Russian side considers russia's loss of Ukraine to be the greatest threat to its national security, as it represents the first geographical buffer and defensive zone between Russia and NATO countries whose strategy after the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union has shifted from (collective defense) to the so-called "collective security", which  based mainly on the principle of NATO's expansion to include important Eastern European countries, close to Russia. Besides  the expansion of its functions beyond the traditional European continent, in order to surround it and control its ambition, its growing capabilities in such a way that no future threat to NATO countries will occur. Geographically, Ukraine represents the region that allows NATO countries and their allies to fully encircle and besiege Russia.

     On the other hand, the Russian side did not stop looking at Ukraine as part of Russian territory, and even after the disintegration of the Soviet Union Russia did not recognize it as an independent state and a full sovereign member of the international community until 1996, and the Russian vision of Ukraine's independence as a phased secession continued, owing to the existence of ethnic, ethnic, religious, geographical and reformers between the two countries, as well as common historical and cultural factors, and for these and other reasons Russia has not ceased to interfere in Ukrainian internal situations.  It opposed all Western attempts to attract Ukraine, and therefore the subject of Russian intervention in Ukraine is not surprising or out of expectation. It has old roots which, perhaps,  the closest of which is the annexation of Crimea to Russia in 2014 and the subsequent regional and international repercussions, which then greatly affected Russian-American and European relations.

     Therefore, the seriousness of Ukraine's position for Russia is the most the important cause of the crisis.  It is the gateway to entry and control between Russia and Europe and has historically been used by both (Naploin and Hitler) in the invasion of Russia. Hence it has an important geopolitical position that whoever controls it, can put pressure on the other side, especially the Russian side, which, if tightens its control on it, it will be able to rule the entire east of Europe. Additionally, it  contains the only port suitable for  Russian ships, and therefore, all of these  causes and others explain the reasons for Russia's policy toward Ukraine which has expanded into a war whose repercussions have affected all countries of the world.

     The consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to an escalation of the energy crisis globally due to the dependence of European countries on Russian energy supplies in a large proportion, and also affected the global food security after the rise in the prices of the most important food consumer goods, wheat, which led to a sudden global high price wave. Besides the fear of the European countries to expand the scope of the war  to other countries, especially in some eastern European countries, and then to lose of the control of the situation to witness the  a third world war that If it occurs, it will threaten all the countries of the world without exception.

        Concerning  the limits at which the Russian side could continue to wage war, escalate and resist Western pressures, and the possibility of extending the scope of war to other States, or even shifting the nature of war from a limited conventional war to an unconventional war, both in terms of the type and size of weapons, all possibilities were potetnial and a particular solution could be ascertained both in nature and in time. There have been many controversies in this area, from researchers who assert that the Russian side can continue the war for an unlimited period, and it has its papers of strength and pressure through which it can bear the consequences of the war, the sanctions imposed on it,  pressure on the West by cutting off energy supplies, in exchange for opinions that the cost of continuing or expanding the war, may force the Russian side to mitigate the war, and reach solutions close to it. On our part we see that the subject of Energy and economic security can be the (key) solution to the current crisis. Although the Russian side is able to harm European countries in terms of cutting off energy supplies, which is happening, the damage to European countries will also be done to the Russian side in return.  It is not a  secret that the Russian economy is not at the level that qualifies it to prolong and bear the consequences of Western sanctions and pressures for long periods, and therefore the economic repercussions may force all parties to negotiate and reach a solution that satisfies all and achieves the interests of all even in varying proportions.

     On the other hand, Russia has a history that can be described as "black", with regard to occupation and street wars. Memories of the occupation of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the long gang wars that provoked the Russian side in the 1980s and 1990s, were among the factors that weakened the Soviet Union and led to its collapse at that time. The Russian economy was exhausted. All of these are important issues that may not be lost on the mind of Russian decision-makers, who cannot risk a long-term war of attrition in Ukraine. They may turn into another Afghanistan or Chechnya that will drain Russia's capacities, and hamper the progress and status that the Russian Federation was able to assume after (Vladimir Putin) took power in Russia, which has the practical experience and personal characteristics, to absorb all the dimensions of the crisis and its implications.

     Thus, the Russian side may resort to merely toppling the political system in Ukraine, and then withdrawing after ensuring the existence of a political system that is an ally of Russia, or may work to dismember Ukraine into multiple states and regions that retain sovereignty or strong relations with its closest and most important to Russia. I think that the issue of disintegration may be unlikely, as it could open the door for the other side (NATO countries) to interfere in the parts or territories that will be away from Russian influence, and thus represent a new future threat. Also, the scope of war and its borders may widen, threatening global and humanitarian security in general. All possibilities are there, and the outbreak of wars even (nuclear) by mistake or miscalculation is also possible.

     But what is certain is that the issue of Ukraine joining NATO, or even of rapprochement, is impossible even if the political regime ruling Ukraine continues in power. Neither the Western side is prepared to enter into wars that could threaten the existence, existence and interests of European countries in order to include an unstable country, nor the current Ukrainian president or his successor, can contemplate provoking the Russian side, approaching Russian interests, and threatening Russian national security in one way or another.