THE RE-EMERGING COLD WAR: RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1    Background of Study
The unfolding of the political turmoil that has characterized Russo-Ukrainian relations, which has convincingly imparted on other East European countries and the European Community at large, is not an overnight-spontaneous upsurge. The present scheme of things and prevalent dispensation can be traced to certain events that occurred within Ukraine herself, which by extension, held strategic significance to Russia of which she was demographically linked in the past, and whose influence still held much sway within the sovereign region in both political and cultural terms. The immediate roots of the present scuffle can be traced to events such as the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan crisis that engulfed Ukraine sometime in 2004 and 2013 respectively.
The Orange Revolution began with non-violent protests on the eve of November 22, 2004 as millions of Ukrainians thronged the Independence Square in Kiev to protest strong anomalies in the election results that favoured the Russian backed presidential candidate, Yanukovych against the pro-Western candidate, Yushchenko. Apart from the immediate reasons for the protests, it also signified a strong disaffection with the prevailing political atmosphere riddled with the dominance of corrupt political elites favoured by Kremlin’s power base (Karatnycky, 2005). The protests signaled the rise of an emerging civil society consciousness and a formidable middle class who were committed to the transformation of the status quo and were ready to seize their destinies in their hands, propelling the fate of the country towards a noble and dignifying image among the committee of nations. Europe and the entire world were bemused at the will of the people to alter the image of a country that had been largely warped and disillusioned by the hierarchy of corrupt leadership that held sway in the country (Karatnycky, 2005). The triumph of Yushchenko implied a fundamental shift in the post-communist history of Eastern Europe, it heralded seismic shift towards the West as never envisaged.
Another crucial event was the Euromaidan crisis of 2013 that finally forged a definite crescendo in the graph of diplomatic relations between Russia and Ukraine. The Euromaidan crisis of that particular year was more of a continuation of the leftover of the Orange Revolution because its immediate roots were not far-fetched from those that provoked the Orange Revolution. The Maidan protests were also concerned with the demand for alignment with the more prosperous West rather than the Russian fixation perpetuated by the Eastern parts of Ukraine, and a definite annihilation of the rampart corruption that had become the trademark of the Ukrainian polity (Van Metre, et. al. 2015). The protests had linkages with the decision of the then incumbent, Viktor Yanukovych, who on the 21st of November, 2013 decided to postpone the association agreement between Ukraine and European Union. This decision proceeded to have a long term effect, degenerating from peaceful protests at the Maidan square in Kiev into vicious confrontations that divided families, communities and the whole Ukrainian nation at large (Pikulicka-Wilczewska, 2015).
It is the view of some scholars that these events created an opening; a vantage opportunity for Russia to seize control of the situation and re-assert herself as a major regional and global power. it is alleged that the incursion of Russia into Ukrainian territories such as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine were deliberate moves by the power center in Kremlin to initiate indigenous instability that would facilitate the attainment and consolidation of the hitherto highlighted goals of Russian foreign policy under Putin’s watch (Van Metre, et. al., 2015). More pronounced have been the Western reactions to the perceived intentions of Russia through the auspices of the European Union and NATO.
The Western bloc responded to this perceived threat induced by Russia by initiating a torrent of responses in the form of diplomatic condemnations, economic sanctions, non-lethal military assistance to Ukrainian forces and the increase of NATO forces in the Eastern flank of the European regions. Russia on the other hand initiated counter responses by increasing the presence of Russian forces in disputed areas of the Ukrainian border, and the transportation of equipment and personnel into Ukrainian territories. Even the global shock necessitated by the sudden drop of oil prices across the globe was not enough to deter Russian military action despite the adverse effect of the oil price depreciation on Russian economy (Van Metre, et. al. 2015). Many scholars have interpreted Putin’s move in Ukraine to be as a result of piled up resentment and a disposition of vendetta for the political turmoil of 2004 that saw to the victory of Yushchenko, and more importantly that saw a shift of Ukrainian allegiance which tilted towards the West. Many have also interpreted the Russian maneuvering in Ukraine as the achievement of short term goals by maintaining constant conflict in Ukraine, keeping the country internally off balance, making Ukraine to continuously remain undesirable to the West and most of all, flexing Russian might in a calculated U.S./E.U. response in pursuit of long term fulfillment (Van Metre, et. al. 2015).
These prevailing circumstances both within and without Ukraine and the whole of Eastern Europe play a fundamental role in the understanding and analysis of the current Russo-Ukrainian relations that has been bedeviled by constant crisis, clashes of interest and a general atmosphere characterized by mutual distrust and suspicion. Apart from the above, there have been general pointers to the expansionist and imperialist intentions of Russia under the Putin administration as some scholars assert. These shall be discussed under the next sub topic by extension.
1.2    Statement of Problem
The world was grossly ill prepared for the sudden twist of events and the reconfiguration of the international system that occurred towards the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties. The first was the significant dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 which once separated West Germany from its Eastern counterpart as a result of the romantic exploits of the latter with Communism. The second which was more startling and mesmerizing was the sudden concession of one of the power blocs that maintained the balance of the bipolar system of global politics as at that point in time. The event which took the vast majority of international relations scholars, politicians, diplomats, journalists and the world at large by surprise was the sudden decision of the Russian controlled U.S.S.R. to disintegrate and put a stop to its patronage of its satellite countries which spread across Europe, Asia and Africa (Aspaturian, 1992). The likes of Realism, the dominant International Relations theory as at then, embarked on an ambitious prediction of the global system to continue on the path of bipolarity for a long while to come. The works of Kenneth Waltz, who was the most significant figure in the Realist school by the wake of early seventies, saw a world system that would be determined by a balance of power among the bipolar blocs for a long time to come (Reus-Smith, 2005). He vigorously pursued this line of thought in one of his most influential works titled Theory of International Politics (1979).
Communist ideology was speedily eroded in countries that constituted the Warsaw alliance which served as a checkmate on NATO ambition for a long while. Countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia replaced their Communist regimes with anti-Communist governments, while some other countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Albania adopted some kind of ‘reformed socialism’. In Russia herself, the country quickly dismantled the state apparatus based on Communist ideals and rather favoured a presidential system that placed maximum power at the center under the Mikhail Gorbachev administration. There were mixed reactions to the decision of Gorbachev as some Soviet scholars who saw the vast U.S.S.R Empire as a burden that had to be dispensed with were somewhat pleased. On the other hand, there were strong resentments from the domestic clime as the KGB and professional military officers saw the Gorbachev policy decisions as gravely detrimental to Russian security concerns (Aspaturian, 1992). Gorbachev on the other hand claimed the legitimacy of his actions by pointing to the socio-economic degeneration of the Soviet empire all in a quest to pursue and maintain ‘global power’ status through ostentatious and irrelevant military expenditure that occurred during the Brezhnev government. As a result, Gorbachev postulated a refinement in foreign policy and a ‘new political thinking’ that took into consideration the economic and political renaissance of the country without undermining her military prowess and her position as a global power in world affairs (Gorbachev, 1988). It was this mantra of a new political thinking that resulted in the famous Glasnosts and Perestroika policy of the Gorbachev regime.The turnout of events virtually left the United States of America as the unchallenged super power and the only authentic claimant to global hegemony. It also initiated an era of impunity buoyed by the illusion of U.S.A. that no country was powerful enough to challenge her dominance. This impunity and arrogance manifested itself in the anarchical system the world was almost plunged into through American involvement in issues such as the Gulf crisis that ensued in the Iraqi/Kuwait crisis, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.   
The West on the other hand, especially the United States of America, got carried away with the possibility of a unipolar system dominated by Capitalist ideology and the consolidation of democracy as the only genuine form of government across the globe. This superfluous and arrogant presumption reflected in the works of many American scholars of that period, but none was more pronounced than the classic work of F. Fukuyama who declared that liberal democracy has emerged victorious and it was in fact the end of human history because this for him marked the end of contending ideologies and the dominance of liberal democracy (Fukuyama, 1992: xv). No such scholarly work was as arrogantly presumptuous as this particular work of Fukuyama, and it went further to reveal the possible mindset of many American scholars and diplomats at that time. The unfolding events of contemporary times have, however, proceeded to disgrace the arrogant presumption of the West.
In recent times, the diplomatic moves and body language of Russia under Putin has signaled an era where American dominance has faced serious compromise and challenges unprecedented. In fact, some see the presumed dominance of America as a fluke and an illusion. Russia’s role in fostering a multipolar system cannot be over-looked, so also her increased counteractive measures in prohibiting American/Western influence on the global scale by making effective use of her veto powers as a permanent member of the United Nations. More controversial is the true intentions behind Russian occupation of erstwhile Communist countries such as Ukraine. As a result of this recent upsurge in Russian aggression and expansionist tendencies, some scholars have come to the conclusion that the Cold War is far from over. In fact, it has assumed a novel dimension which is deeper and more intensifying than the Cold War we were quite used to before its collapse (Shearman, 2010: 12). In one’s opinion, the precariousness of the subtle re-emergence of a Cold War is because it is no longer basically between two power centers, but many other power centers have emerged since the end of the Cold War. Inclusive of the increasing multi-polar structure of international system are the new power centers that have evolved in the Asian bloc, especially in countries such as China and India. Hence, if a Cold War was to resurface, it would no longer be an Euro-American affair, but would incorporate the new power centers. This in itself has immense implications for the structure of global politics in itself.
1.3    Objective of Study
This essay is aimed at achieving the following objectives as regards the subject matter under analysis. These are as follows:
1)    To examine the nature of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine.
2)    To ascertain the significance of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine.
3)    To determine the validity of Russia’s claims over some Ukrainian territories.
4)    To identify and analyze the measures and strategies adopted by Russia in consolidating her claims over some Ukrainian territories.
5)    To highlight the territorial and global implications of Russian involvement in Ukraine.
6)    To examine the reactions of Ukraine as the country directly involved in the Post-Cold War politics.
7)    To ascertain the interests and counter reactions of the United States and the European Community at large.
1.4    Research Questions
The following questions shall be addressed during the course of this study. They are as follows:
1)    What is the nature of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine?
2)    Why is Ukraine so significant to Russian interests in recent times?
3)    How legitimate and valid are the claims of Russia over Ukrainian territory?
4)    What are the measures and strategies adopted by Russia to maintain its claims over some Ukrainian territories?
5)    What are the implications of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine on a territorial or global level?
6)    What is Ukraine’s stand and reaction to Russia’s belligerent occupation of her sovereign territories?
7)    What are the counter-measures adopted by other actors whose interests are involved, such as the United Nations, United States and the European Community?
1.5    Significance of Study
Many scholars and diplomats have undoubtedly produced elaborate literature concerning Russian involvement in Ukraine since 2014. These literature and research work continue to hold relevance in the respective angles they attempt to view the issue from. This work, however, seeks to contribute to the existing literature by viewing the issue from its inter-connectivity with the Soviet precedents of the two countries involved, especially their location within the Cold War era, and to see if in reality, the issue has a great significance as regards a potential Cold War resurgence.
Many scholars have alluded to different reasons and explanations for Russian incursion into Ukrainian territory. Some see it as closely associated with Russia’s aspiration for some kind of Eurasia (Eastern Europe and Asia) collaboration in terms of a security network, bereft of Western influence which is jointly endorsed by the Putin/Medvedev regimes (Kanet, 2010: 2); some others see Russia’s move as a reaction to the US supported coup in Ukrainian territory that occurred in 2014 which overthrew a legitimately elected government under Ukrainian law and has nothing to do with the expansionist propaganda perpetuated by the West (Blum, 2016); some others have also seen Russia’s actions in the light of a head-on confrontation with the West by showing disregard for Western policies and also as a way of reacting to the West’s tendency to treat Russia as an inferior partner in the management of global affairs (Simes, 2007). The consequence of the latter in the order of different reasons that have been put forward is that the deliberate belligerence shown by the Russian federation is meant to signify her defiance for Western incursion into her sphere of influence and a re-assertion of the equal status Russia has in the international system as a Global Power, which is quite reminiscent of the balance of power structure that pervaded the Cold War era.
Hence, by embarking on a thorough analysis of the above consequential subject matter and the related issues, the study intends to expand the frontiers of knowledge as regards the Russo-Ukrainian dispute and also create more room for further debates and research as regards this matter at hand because it is one of the fundamental features of knowledge pursuit and the beauty of international relations discipline. International relations deals with an ever evolving global community. Hence, no particular work of international relevance is self-explanatory or totally exhaustive of international issues under discuss. The work intends to be a beneficial and handy tool to scholars, researchers and policy makers in the field of international relations and other related disciplines.
1.6    Scope and Limitation of Study
As a result of demographic and resource constraints, the locus in quo (Russia and Ukraine) would quite be infeasible to reach. Hence,this work shall primarily source its data from secondary sources which are available and within one’s reach.
As previously mentioned, there are numerous existing literature and write-ups on the subject matter, but this work is basically concerned with examining the issue basically from the relevance it bears to Russia’s foreign policy, role (imagined or actual) in global politics and her interests especially in relation to other global powers, especially from the West. This is also, closely tied to the significance of Russia’s actions in Ukraine to Russia herself and other global powers at large. The study does not embark on an ambitious or gargantuan endeavour of exposing all the related issues as regards Russia’s actions in Ukraine, or even within the other regions close by. It must be admitted that Russia’s actions are not limited to Ukraine alone as other literature have explained, there are other allusions to Russia’s activities in former Soviet territories and satellite states. However, this work is primarily concerned with the events occurring in Ukrainian territory, and it also analyzes it from within a specific perspective.
1.7    Research Proposition
The following propositions have been pushed forward during the course of this study. They are as follows:
•    The most pertinent reason for Russia’s occupation of some Ukrainian territories is to counter Western expansionism especially through the auspices of NATO and E.U.
•    Russia’s occupation of Ukraine has both manifest and latent significance which bears relevance to their geographical, economic and political interests.
•    Russia has become more confrontational and is still evolving a more assertive posture and foreign policy since the advent of Putin administration.
•    Russia’s actions and body language portend a re-institutionalization of a balance of power in the international system but in a multi-polar world unlike the erstwhile bi-polar world.
1.8    Research Design
Data Collection
The study shall basically be sourced from secondary materials such as books, journals, newspapers and speeches. Other relevant secondary sources such as maps, graphs and statistical tables shall also be utilized to supplement and consolidate the textual evidence upon which the research rests.
Research Design
For the purpose of this study, the qualitative content analysis shall be employed. Qualitative research according to Williams (2007) involves the purposeful use of the analytic tools of description, explanation and interpretation in the collection and collation of data. He also adds that the qualitative research method enables the researcher to investigate the phenomenon from his or her view point. The content analysis aspect of qualitative research according to Leedy and Ormrod (2001) is “a detailed and systematic examination of the contents of a particular body of materials for the purpose of identifying patterns, themes, or biases”. It also involves identifying the body of material to be studied and defining the characteristics or qualities to be examined in the body of material. They acknowledge the relevance and appropriateness of the qualitative method in building theories. The aim of content analysis is to achieve the highest objective analysis possible. Qualitative content analysis employs a methodology whereby various forms of human communications such as newspapers, books and journals are reviewed within their contexts of communication in order to identify themes and patterns (Williams, 2007). This approach is quite relevant in the examination and analysis of socio-political issues.
As distinct from its quantitative counterpart, qualitative content analysis does not require the collation of a representative sample unit. Hence, it fits more into the category of non-probability or non-random sampling.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the study shall basically be based on the relevant literature, while the maps, graphs and tables shall serve as necessary illustrations for the vivid understanding of the issue at stake. By embarking on the description and analysis of social phenomena, qualitative content analysis may validate existing themes and theories while it may as well create an avenue for the formulation of novel themes and theories, depending on the result of the analysis. Hence, according to Neuman (2003:185), qualitative researchers are more pre-occupied with the search for authenticity rather than validity.
1.9    Conceptual Clarification
We shall endeavour to examine some basic concepts and terminologies under this sub topic. This will enable us to have a vivid comprehension of the subject matter. The key terminologies are as follows:
Cold War: The origins of the term ‘Cold War’ has been attributed to a number of scholars, politicians and journalists who had their roots in American history. The likes of Bernard Baruch, a politician, Walter Lippmann, a writer, and journalist, H.B. Swope have one time or the other been attributed with the title of authors of the term. However, the origins of the term date as far back as the fourteenth century in the work of one Spanish writer named Don Juan Manuel (Hough 2008:26). The writer used to term to mean a situation between countries where there is a state of hostility or tension, but not characterized by actual warfare. The writer, Don Joan Manuel used this term to refer to the scenario between Spain and the Muslim World as at then. However, the relations that ensued between the Capitalist United States and former Communist Soviet Empire after the Second World War accurately fitted the description (Hough, 2008). Flowing from the above, a Cold War, according to Shearman (2010:15) is therefore “based upon a level of tensions between actors in which, short of a hot shooting war, relations are tense and strained on all indicators ofstate power: military, cultural, economic, political, and diplomatic, ina zero-sum game in which one side’s gain is seen automatically as theother side’s loss.”
The historical accounts of the bitter rivalry between the bi-polar powers (U.S.A. and U.S.S.R.) were characterized by an avoidance of outright military conflicts, but a prevalence of proxy wars. It was a situation where one side would fight an enemy sponsored by the other side, or both would take sides with and sponsor their own allies in a conflict while watching and cheering from the side lines (Hough, 2008). Some of the examples of the proxy wars included the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and the U.S.S.R. invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. One of the major reasons why a head-on confrontation between both powers was warily avoided and inconceivable was according to Hough (2008) the ‘balance of terror’ or what many scholars of international relations would refer to as ‘balance of power’ necessitated and made feasible by the possession of W.M.D. (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The possession of nuclear and military capability by both parties threatened not only the existence of the respective actors, but the entire global population, and this was a central concern for International Organizations such as the United Nations which championed a ‘nuclear disarmament’ initiative to deter an outright nuclear war. Various reasons have been alluded to for the emergence of Cold War, these shall, however, be discussed in the unfolding chapters.
Russia: The Russian Federation is often disputed by many analysts to be located either in the Asia or Europe. As a result, the term ‘Eurasia’ has been used to refer to Russia’s peculiar situation. However, according to the Maps of World (2011), Russia should be regarded as more of an European country because of the following reasons: Russians are predominantly of the ethnic group called ‘East Slavs’ and these group of persons are often regarded as Europeans by most historians; Russia makes up of about 40% of the land mass of the whole European continent; about 78% of Russia’s population live in European part of Russia; The Russian language is written in the Cyrillic script, which is an evolved/derived form of an ancient Greek script. Most of the “sounds” in spoken Russian relate closely with other East European languages. The Cyrillic script and its first documented usage is credited to the First Bulgarian Empire (10th Century AD); and lastly, most of Russia practice Orthodox Christianity which was an offshoot of the ancient Byzantine Empire. The Russian Federation is the largest of the 21 republics that make up the Commonwealth of Independent States. It occupies most of Eastern Europe and North Asia, stretching from the Baltic Sea in the West to the Pacific Ocean in the East, and from the Arctic Ocean in the North to the Black Sea and the Caucasus in the South. It is bordered by Norway and Finland in the northwest; Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania in the west; Georgia and Azerbaijan in the southwest; and Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, and North Korea along the southern border.
Russia can historically be traced to as far back as 862 A.D. when Rurik the Viking founded the Russian dynasty in Novgorod. However, Russia later fell under the influence of the Mongols until the advent of Ivan the Terrible (1533-1584) who suppressed Mongol influence, crushed the influence of rival princes and boyars, and established the Russian State. He is often regarded as the first Muscovite Czar of Russia (Infoplease, 2016). Russia continued to be under the influence of the Czars until the Bolshevik revolution that occurred in 1917 due to the rampart corruption and inefficiency of the Czarist regime. The Bolshevik Socialist Democratic Party placed Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trostky in power after Czar Nicholas II was killed with his family, and the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky was over-run. Russia did not; however totally fall under the control of Communism until 1920 due to a series of internal struggles. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was eventually formed on 20th Dec, 1922. Stalin eventually took over the reins of power after the death of Lenin in 1924 and the banishment of Trostky (Infoplease, 2016).
Russia is richly blessed with oil reserves and is the second largest producer of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and largest producer of natural gas, giving her a wide range of control over oil exportation and production in Asia and across Europe (British Petroleum, 2007).
Ukraine: Ukraine is located in the Eastern part of Europe and is the second largest country in that region after Russia. The capital of the country is Kyiv, located on the Dnieper River in the north-central part of Ukraine. It is bordered by Belarus to the north, Russia to the East, Sea of Azov and the Black Sea to the South, Moldova and Romania to the South West, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia to the West. The country is characterized by fertile black soil steppes and mountainous areas such as the Carpathians in the South West and the Crimean chain in the South    (Zasensko, et al., 2016). Ukraine was formerly known as ‘KievanRus’ up till the 16th century, and Kiev, the major city in the KievanRus was the major political and cultural center in the whole of Eastern Europe by the 9th century. Kiev attained the heights of its power by the 10th century and declined by 1240 as a result of Mongol invasion. From 13th to 16th century, Kiev was under the dominion of Poland and Western Europe. As a result, the Ukrainians in 1654, asked for protection against Poland by the Czar of Moscovy and this culminated in the Treaty of Pereyasav. This treaty was interpreted by Moscow to be an invitation to take over Kiev. Thus, the Ukrainian state was eventually absorbed into the Russian Empire (Infoplease, 2016). Ukraine briefly gained independence from Russia in January 1918 during the Bolshevik Revolution. However, Kiev was once more over-run by the Communist Red Army in 1920, and in 1922, Ukraine became one of the founding countries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Ukraine finally declared her independence on August 24th, 1991 under the leadership of President Leonid Kravchuk, after the fall of Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Together with Russian and Belorussian leaders, Ukraine formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.) in Dec. 1991. In Oct 1994, Crimea was annexed by Ukraine as part of her sovereign state and her constitution was revoked (Infoplease, 2016).
Ukraine has been regarded as the second most important economic hub of the former Soviet Republics after Russia, producing about four times the output of the next ranking republic. Its major economic activities include the production and exportation of agricultural produce such as milk, meat, vegetable and grain. This is facilitated by the prevalence of its rich and fertile black soil unprecedented in the whole of the former Soviet Empire. She is also involved in the production and exportation of heavy industrial equipment such as large diameter pipes and vertical drilling apparatus. She also exports raw materials to industrial and mining sites within the former U.S.S.R. and the C.I.S. countries (World Fact Book: C.I.A. 2016).
Below is a map illustration showing the proximity of the Russian and Ukrainian states, and also other bordering East European states. This would help us to understand issues surrounding the territorial conflicts that have ensued between the two states in recent times as they share a lot in common, especially in terms of culture, politics and history.