The crisis between Russia and Ukraine, in essence, stands out as a problem of Moscow with the United States (USA)-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-West. The main goal of the USA is to marginalize Russia through the crisis. In this sense, the Washington administration is trying to separate Europe and Russia, and especially Berlin and Moscow.
As it is known, the EU Army/PESCO debates have taken place in the European Union (EU) recently and European decision-makers have made statements about the strategic autonomy of the continent. In other words, the USA is trying to make Europe, which is attempting to position itself as a pole-power center in the world evolving into multipolarity, dependent on itself by using the argument that there is a Russia threatening the security of the continent, or in other words, by presenting its traditional other, Russia, as a threat again. The Washington administration, which thinks that it will weaken Russia through the establishment of the mentioned alliance, wants to build Russia-Europe relations in the format that it draws its borders and Russia-US relations that will be shaped by a structure it will determine in the mid and long term. For this reason, the White House is trying to use the crisis in question for its own interests. Perhaps, after the current tension is overcome, a certain ground of agreement will be formed in Russia-US relations, and Washington and Moscow will turn to a cooperation-based reconciliation.
Russia, on the other hand, wants to maintain its influence in the former Soviet area within the framework of the Near Abroad Doctrine, also known as the Primakov Doctrine. In this context, the Kremlin favors Ukraine to remain as a neutral buffer zone between Russia and the West. The issue here is not just Ukraine’s NATO orientation. Moscow approaches the EU issue with the same sensitivity. As a matter of fact, the Maydan Events started in this way.
On the other hand, it should be emphasized that Russia is not the primary opponent of the White House. Because the real challenge to American leadership comes from the Asia-Pacific. As it is known, there are two basic pillars that ensure the sustainability of American hegemony at the global level. These are Asia-Pacific and Europe.
The USA, which is in the position of a lame duck, is trying to secure its influence in Europe by using the tension on the Moscow-Kiev line in order to focus on the challenge from China in particular in the Asia-Pacific. In other words, the Washington administration, which does not see the power to focus on the Asia-Pacific geography in the current situation, is trying to secure Europe. This is the reason why the crises have shifted to the southern and western borders.
For all these reasons, the White House concentrates on issues concerning European security and strives to keep alive the perception of the “Russian threat”, the traditional other of the continent. This situation underlines the fact that US President Joe Biden has increased the pressure on Russia, especially in Ukraine. In other words, Washington prefers an environment where the drums of war sound in order to increase the threat perceptions of the EU countries. Ukraine is also a part of this game. However, it should be noted that; Moscow seems to be aware of the game. Similarly, Kiev states that despite the high-pitched statements, it did not get the support it expected. This was also expressed by the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky. Therefore, Ukraine also understood what the USA was trying to do.
Calculations of Biden on Election
Another point that should not be ignored at this point is that the midterm elections in the USA are approaching. In other words, there is also the domestic political dimension of American foreign policy. In order to enter the midterm elections strongly, Biden carries out image restoration work both in the American public and in the international public opinion, through his opposition to Russia. Because the polls indicate that Biden is on the decline.
Megaphone Diplomacy of Western
As can be clearly seen from the Western media, the United States is in favor of the escalation of tensions. In this sense, it is possible to say that the policy implemented by the USA at the state level and the stance of the American media match. There is an attitude that prepares societies for war and actually fuels the fire. But in Europe the situation is different.
In the current conjuncture, it is seen that European states such as Germany and France are in favor of solving the issue through diplomatic means and are making attempts towards this; The attitude of European media outlets differs from their own governments. This is a remarkable issue. Because, European media organizations almost make news that wants the war to break out, prepare societies for war and therefore they maintain megaphone diplomacy.
In short, it can be said that the separation between the policies of governments and the stances of media organs in countries such as Germany and France is significant. This shows the influence of the USA on the European media.
Western media is processing the message that democracies should fight authoritarians through Russia. Undoubtedly, China is not free from this perception. It can be argued that the Western media will play an important role in the “Democrats/Union of Democracies” project that Biden tried to establish on the occasion of the Democracy Summit.
Silence of the UN
The silence of the United Nations (UN) is primarily related to the structure of this organization. Russia’s veto power in the UN Security Council (UNSC) means that the UN may be insufficient to overcome the crises once again. The UN has not been able to give a successful test in many events in the past. As a matter of fact, the process experienced in Ukraine in 2014 revealed the inadequacy of the UN in terms of ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states.
The appeasement policy of the UN against Russia, which is inadequate in preventing and managing crises in the current situation, and the global geopolitical polarization reminds the period before the Second World War. Because at that time, the League of Nations was ineffective and it even implemented a policy of appeasement against Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany. As a result, it can be argued that the fate of the UN will not be different from the League of Nations if the demands for reform are ignored.