Introduction:
Ukraine in Fragile Security Contexts
For nearly three decades now, we have been witnessing the gradual demise of the bi-polar international order first established in a world dominated by the Cold War. This outcome was inevitable; after the collapse of the Soviet Union the global environment, along with its attendant geopolitical realities, changed markedly. But the slow-motion disintegration of this security system has ushered in the advent of a still-inchoate replacement, the parameters and meaning of which continue to be vigorously contested. Consequently, it is proving difficult to characterize the new system that is emerging, one wherein ascendant powers that do not share the values of the West are attempting to construct a multi-polar and ideologically diverse world. Illustrative of this are Russias efforts to sway Ukraine back into its orbit. Proceeding through political and military means as well as various hybrid tactics, they exemplify what Polands former Foreign Minister, Adam Rotfield, has labelled a new game without rules.
Indeed, the conflict inand overUkraine dramatically illustrates the extent to which the post-Cold War international order, along with regional- and state-level dynamics in the post-communist space, have evolved since the 1990s. The essential nature of this change, as well as its practical implications, requires careful study and analysis. To this end the Ukrainian crisis provides a useful lens into wider processes, as it is not merely a domestic issue but also an international crisis, bracketed by the rivalry between two external powersthe so-called Western world, as represented by the US and EU (though these entities do not agree with one another in many important respects) and a Russian Federation eager to restore and defend a privileged sphere of influence in what Russian officials refer to as its near abroad. As a result, while the internal impact of events such as the annexation of Crimea by Russia in March 2014 and the outbreak of separatist violence in the Donbas region soon thereafter has been profound for Ukraine, the external ramifications have been no less significant. Broadly speaking, the unwillingness of Russia, the US and the UK to uphold the assurances of Ukraines territorial integrity that were agreed to in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (in exchange for Kyiv relinquishing its nuclear arsenal and signing on to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) has devalued international security cooperation and thwarted efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Concomitantly, the imposition of sanctions resulting from Moscows actions in Ukraine has also had a negative impact on Russias economy, postponing its integration with Europe and hindering the implementation of the Wider Europe concept, which seeks the development of a free trade and security zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
As exemplified by its involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian Federations policies over the course of the past few years suggest that Moscow is attempting to develop a security paradigm based on being able to project military power while simultaneously limiting its dependence on the international system as it is presently configured, which the Kremlin perceives as being hypocritical (e.g., insisting others adopt liberal democratic values while countries like the US pursue a realpolitik foreign policy, violating state sovereignty with pre-emptive military interventions, and so forth) and fundamentally antagonistic towards its interests. This has forced international and supranational organizations such as NATO and the EU to alter how they understand and approach international security, both in regard to Ukraine and the world more generally. The geopolitical tensions that have arisen from this development have had far-reaching consequences. Attesting to this is the ongoing war in Syria, which, in pitting Russian interests against those of Western states, has highlighted the global relevance of instability in Europes immediate neighborhood. Moreover, the consequences of such distant conflicts have proven capable of turning back on Europe, with issues like the EUs migrant fiasco and the continuing threat of Islamist terrorism on European soil only emphasizing this inherent interconnectedness.
What has happened in Ukraine also calls into question the EUs eastern policy as it currently stands, as well as Russias emerging approach towards the post-Soviet space. Effectively, the country has become an arena of contention for two rival integration projects: that of Europe, represented by the EU and normatively envisaged as liberal-democratic politically and market-driven economically, and that of Eurasia, conceived of as an alternative, Russia-led union. But this geopolitical rivalry, today frequently cast in civilizational terms, is not confined to Ukraine; the whole of Eastern Europe is in some fashion or another embroiled in it. On the one hand, this is evident in EU projects such as the European Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership, although both initiatives have so far failed to meaningfully bolster relations between the Union and its Eastern partners. On the other hand, it is also apparent in the steps the Russian Federation has taken to undermine the independence of the erstwhile Soviet states, regarding their sovereignty as permeable and subject to Moscows influence. As a result of these actions, systemic insecurity and regional instability have increased, developments reflected in the frozen conflicts that currently exist in such places as Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.
Unsurprisingly, in post-Maidan Ukraine Russias policy has followed a similar script, with the Kremlin backing separatist militias in the east of the country (officially, Russia is not involved in the Ukrainian conflict, though it openly supports the breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk). However, while Russia managed to successfully annex Crimea, sporadic fighting continues in the Donbas and Ukrainian public opinion has notably soured on its larger and increasingly assertive neighbor, with a December 2017 survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology not only finding that the steep decline in the number of Ukrainians who exhibit a positive attitude towards Russia initially evinced in early 2014 continues to hold, but also that a plurality now support their country joining both the EU (49% for, 28% against) and NATO (41% for, 32% against). Meanwhile, bilateral and multi-lateral relations between the Western states and Russia, catalyzed by events in Ukraine, have reached a post-Soviet nadir.
Obviously, there is much to scrutinize in this context. However, the effects of the Maidan protests have previously been analyzed mainly in terms of Ukraines domestic politics or relative to various dyadic relationships (e.g., Ukraine/EU, Ukraine/Russia, or even Russia/EU, with Ukraine serving as a proxy). But although these are undoubtedly important categories of inquiry (and ones that our contributing authors evaluate as well), what has not taken place thus far is any sort of sustained and meaningful analysis of how the Maidan has reverberated politically through the post-communist region, and what this means for observers in Europe and throughout the world. Consequently, the goals of this book are to provide insight into the impact the crisis is having on Ukraines internal security and the global resonances that proceed from it, as well as to shed light on how it affects proximate countries. In this respect, our project possesses an important temporal advantage, having come together at a time when we are far enough removed from the events of late 2013 and early 2014 to have achieved some measure of objectivity in analyzing them, but yet close enough that their meaning and salience has not been eroded from the minds of participants and observers. In other words, we are still at the stage of assessing them as political scientists and international relations specialists rather than as historians.