By Anthony Webber:
Why is there conflict in Ukraine? Why is the UK government involved?
Why are they not telling the public the truth about it?
The government have involved the UK in the conflict in Ukraine without any mandate at all.
Since the Russian invasion on February 24th 2022, and before that, the government have used the media to give their version of events and allowed no other viewpoints.
That should be enough to make UK citizens concerned about what is really going on.
To understand the situation, it is important to examine the recent history of the country as in the article below.
(This is to be followed up by an article on the theme of “Have the UK government’s policies on the Ukraine and Russia been some of the biggest blunders in British history?”)
The background to the Ukraine conflict:
The first point to examine is could this conflict have been avoided in the first place?
In the weeks leading up to the Russian invasion that there was a window of opportunity to use diplomacy to prevent it happening.
Russia maintained that the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 onwards had not been adhered to and it appeared there were several legitimate grievances.
The issues of separatist armed conflict in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions which had been ongoing since 2008, were still simmering. One major problem was that civilians in the Donbass continued to be shelled by Ukrainian Armed forces.
It has not helped since the invasion, that leaders of Ukraine, France and Germany ( parties to the Minsk agreements) have all since stated that they were effectively paying lip service to these agreements in order for Ukraine to gain time to become stronger militarily. That revelation will be hugely damaging when peace negotiations eventually begin again, as trust is such an important factor in diplomacy. Duplicity in diplomacy does no one any good, especially when it is admitted!
The history of the Ukraine is complicated as it has been part of other countries/empires, including the old USSR.
It became independent in 1991.
It has had a short, checkered history since then and has been beset with corruption amongst other problems.
When it was part of the USSR, the fact that many Ukrainians had been on different sides in the Second World War, was not an issue, as the onus was on reconciliation.
After 1991 factionalism started to re-emerge and there were growing tensions between the new generations of those who had been on opposing sides in that war.
In 2010 Viktor Yanukovych was elected as President of Ukraine, and he very much believed in reconciliation.
He spoke Russian but decided to learn Ukrainian.( Ironically the same with Zelensky)
He also wanted Ukraine to continue with its neutral status, and to not be a member of NATO or CSTO ( The Collective Security Treaty , made up of six former Soviet States, including Russia)
He favoured a collective defence system which the EU, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine would all participate in.
He was interested in improving economic ties with the EU. However, he decided not to finalise an EU Association Agreement in November 2013, because Russia had offered more favourable trade terms than those offered by the EU and the IMF ( International Monetary Fund).
This sparked off what were known as the Euromaiden protests, which demanded that the Agreement with the EU was signed, and that Yanukovych resign as President.
There were thousands of people in organised occupation of parts of the capital city of Kiev over some weeks, with violent clashes with the police, and a number of people were killed on both sides.
Yanukovych signed an agreement with opposition parties to try to resolve the situation on February 21st 2014, but he subsequently accused them of breaking this agreement.
He left the city of Kiev secretly but the next day his opponents said he had not fulfilled his constitutional duties and took steps to replace him, even though he had publicly said he was not resigning. He said that an armed coup had taken place against him and that this was organised and supported by western powers.
He has always maintained that his removal from office was unlawful. Whatever gloss is put on what happened, it was a de facto coup, and something of this magnitude would not have happened without outside planning and support.
Interestingly, the Ukraine trade agreement with the EU was subsequently signed with a new President installed, reconciliation efforts within Ukraine were discontinued, and increasing anti-Russia stances were taken.
The coup brought about the ending of Ukraine as a peaceful country where different communities could live together in peace and harmony.
It is worth mentioning that the ethnic makeup of Ukraine is 77.5% Ukrainians, 17.2% Russians, and then the remainder made up of a hundred different nationalities, including, Romanians, Belorussians, Tarters, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Poles, Armenians, Jews and Rutherians.
The perception that there is rule by the majority ( hardline Ukrainians favouring them against the minorities) is not helpful to create a unified country.
Ukraine could live in peace and the majority of their citizens of many different backgrounds have shown they can and want to live in peace and harmony with each other..
This is why the coup was a betrayal of peace loving Ukrainians, who had voted for Yanukovych.
The removal of Yanukovych had a destabilising effect on reconciliation and there were protests in many parts of the country.
This is when the Russo-Ukrainian war started in earnest, as it was perceived that anti-Russian factions had taken over the Ukraine government.
In Crimea, Russian forces assisted the local separatists in the taking over of the regional government on 27th February.
On 16th March there was a referendum where over 95% voted for Crimea and Sevastopol to become part of Russia. On 18th March, they formally became part of Russia.
Meanwhile, in Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, the separatists who had taken control there, initiated referenda which approved breaking away from Ukraine by large majorities.
Although there was much international criticism of the legality and processes of these referenda, these two new republics were set up later in 2014.
The conflict between Ukraine and the Donbass ( Donetsk and Luhansk) continued and there were still substantial parts of the Donbass controlled by the Ukrainian military.
In May 2019, a former comedian , Volodymyr Zelensky, was elected President on a platform of peace, yet ironically under his leadership Ukraine went in the opposite direction.
If Ukraine was to be saved as a united country, then it would have to respect and honour the languages, customs, religions traditions and history of all its component parts and citizens.
This would also have meant having a more federalised constitution with greater autonomy for the regions.
Instead, Ukraine became more controlled and influenced by extreme elements such as the Azov Neo-Nazis.
Hatred against Russia and the Russian language, Church and traditions was fostered.
Division between Ukrainians and Ukrainians whose first language was Russian was increased.
Yet it should have been a time for peace and accord for all Ukrainians regardless of their language and cultural backgrounds.
It was against this scenario that Russia was making it very clear that if the issues of security, stability and safety for Russia and the “Russian” regions of Ukraine were not resolved, that they would have to take action.
If Mexico, for instance, allowed an enemy to set up nuclear weapons bases, this is something the USA could not have tolerated.
This was shown by the Cuban missile crisis many years ago.
The same if, for instance, the Republic of Ireland had allowed an enemy to place nuclear weapons sites there, it would not be acceptable to the UK.
So it was understandable that Russia did not want a NATO member in their under belly through Ukraine, and it was clear that NATO had aspirations to expand eastwards, despite previously committing not to do this.
For some weeks there was a build-up of Russian military on the border with Ukraine.
This invasion need not have happened if realistic and pragmatic diplomatic solutions had been pursued.
It surely must be easier to stop a war happening, than to stop one once it has started.
As Winston Churchill once stated, “Meeting Jaw to Jaw is better than War War.”
This was well understood by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev ( the last President of the USSR), who brought about an era of détente between “East” and “West.”
What seems to be lacking today is politicians who have astute, mature, and respected, diplomatic skills.
It should be far easier to bring about resolving of major political disputes between democratic countries, which Russia has been since 1993, than with a communist country, (which Russia was within the USSR from 1917).
Once the invasion had taken place on it was more difficult to bring about negotiations.
Russia had clearly lost faith in them and lost faith in those they had to negotiate with.
On 21st February 2022 Russia had recognised the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, three days before it started.
On 23-27th September the four Oblasts ( regions) of Donesk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzia had referendums and voted to become part of Russia.
On 30th September, Russia accordingly annexed those regions.
Russia called its invasion of Ukraine a “Special Military Operation,” because it had limited objectives and was not aimed at destroying or taking over Ukraine.
Hence the vast majority of Ukraine has not been subject to warfare .
The early overall success of the Russian campaign brought Ukraine to the negotiation table with Russia.
There was a 15 point peace deal which fundamentally involved Russia withdrawing to its pre-invasion boundaries ( thus securing areas including the Crimea region and much of Donetsk and Luhansk ).Ukraine would be a neutral country and not join NATO.
Russia stated on April 6th that it had withdrawn its forces from the Kiev region as a gesture of goodwill to create favourable conditions for Ukraine to agree with this peace deal.
Russia’s offensive in the Kiev region had been pretty broadscale and had achieved many successes, but also many setbacks.
Perhaps it was a mistake for Russia to make this gesture, even if their offensive had not gone exactly as they had hoped.
Whatever the actual situation, NATO had been urging Ukraine not to sign a peace deal prior to the Russian withdrawal.
Also, on 9th April the then UK Prime Minister made a surprise visit to President Zelensky in Kiev, to persuade Ukraine to continue fighting.
Without any mandate at all, Boris Johnson, offered more arms and other aid, to enable them to do so.
He said: “The UK and others will supply the equipment, the technology, the know-how, the intelligence, for you.”
He also offered a Long term support package to Ukraine as well as a New aid package.
This was in addition to the military and other assistance given to Ukraine since the very start of the invasion on 24th February 2022.
On April 12th 2022, President Putin stated that the peace negotiations had reached a dead end.
This was not surprising considering what had happened.
The UK supply of weaponry and other aid has continued and over £15bn of taxpayers’ money has been spent, which was diverted away from the needs of British citizens.
The government has effectively said this level of funding is never ending, but that is reckless and untenable.
Can the UK afford to give away £5-£10bn a year? Let alone the economic costs, and increasing costs of living and energy ?
This simply cannot continue.
The current situation with the conflict is that the Russians have withdrawn or been forced to withdraw from several areas they had taken.
However, they have also advanced in some areas and the counter offensive by Ukraine has still achieved no major success.
Ukraine has suffered horrendous casualties in their efforts to regain lost ground and it seems they will never take back the territories which are now part of Russia.
This is despite literally hundreds of billions being given to them by mainly NATO powers for expensive military aid and for propping up their government financially.
It is a tragedy, especially when not one of the countries sending weapons to Ukraine has any democratic mandate to do so from their citizens.
All these countries have suffered economically because of their financing of this warmongering.
NATO countries have unnecessarily prolonged this war and it is so sad that they and the UK government has the blood of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians on their hands.
This could and should have ended a year ago last April. However, certain NATO countries have only been interested in trying to weaken Russia and have no interest in what happens to the people of Ukraine. They want to break up Russia so the globalist corporations can plunder the country’s extensive resources.
The result is likely to be the end of Ukraine or a very reduced one.
As things stand now, Ukraine has been sold out to Black Rock Hedge Fund by President Zelensky’s government. There is no freedom and democracy in Ukraine, they have shut down opposition media and political parties, elections have been “postponed” until the end of the conflict, and there is nothing left for people to fight for.
It is just that NATO wants them to carry on fighting and that organisation has not only abandoned its own charter, but it is not seeking peace in the world.
NATO has no authority to act in this way which is so disrespectful of the value of human lives.
NATO has been run in the USA’s interests for some time now and both have de facto been taken over by globalist vested interests.
This is the reason the war continues. Arms manufacturers are making billions and globalist corporations want NATO member taxpayers to pay for all the fighting, while they get all the financial profit at the end, with no financial risk to themselves. It is immoral and inhuman to treat a country in this cannon fodder manner. The reality is that Ukrainian military are like pawns to be expended on the chess board. Ukraine is rich in natural resources, and they are a key prize for a victor in this conflict. It is noteworthy that many of these resources are in Russian controlled areas,( which might explain the near suicidal losses the Zelensky government is prepared to take with throwing their military into what has become known as “the meat grinder,” the strong defensive lines of the Russians across a broad front).
What is also a major worry about this conflict has been the perception that the UK has been acting as the USA’s lapdog and pushing the weapons provision agenda.
Even though not an EU member, the UK has been acted as if it was one and worked with the EU leaders to send arms to the Ukraine government.
Unless the NATO countries directly commit their own armed forces in Ukraine ( which is highly unlikely because it would provoke a nuclear war ), it looks certain that there is no point in Ukraine continuing to fight. They are already having severe manpower and resource issues despite all the help from NATO countries.
It seems that the Ukraine government’s backing away from a peace deal was a major blunder (but brought about by UK and USA interference).
All they will have achieved is a wrecked and much smaller country, which will be dependent on others to recover. Worse is the huge number of young men who have been killed or been severely injured. Hundreds of thousands. The Russians too, have lost many young men, and the tragedy is that both sides are primarily Slavs ethnically, fighting each other.
Peace is needed urgently to end the pointless bloodshed.
This will be achieved either by Ukrainians freeing themselves of the extreme Russia haters in government, who would fight to the last Ukrainian, or by Russia itself bringing about a decisive offensive, to end the war.
Peace will also be an opportunity for over eight million Ukrainian refugees to return. These have gone to several countries, and it has been costly for those countries.
The 240,000 Ukrainian refugees in the UK cost the taxpayer about £2bn a year. The largest taker of refugees has been Russia, with nearly 3 million.
Then there are about eight further displaced people in Ukraine itself.
It is in everyone’s interests to return to peace and stability.
Anthony Webber
Independent Political Commentator
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
