By Theo Kyriacou

Nearly a fortnight ago when the Russian government had yet to send troops into Ukraine, two experts well versed in the history of East-West relations expressed their views on the unfolding Ukrainian crisis. One said that the risk of a ‘full blooded Russian invasion’ was never as high as some western governments had portrayed, and on the vexed issue of NATO membership he took the view that there was no prospect of Ukraine actually joining. The other even suggested that Ukraine joining NATO would be a provocation.

And they are at least partially correct in their observations. Why would the Kremlin attempt to wrestle much more territory away from Ukraine, given that it already controls the strategically important peninsula of Crimea as well as large swathes of the Donbass in eastern Ukraine? Last Thursday’s invasion did see Russian troops hurtle towards Kyiv, but they will probably be pulled back to Lugansk and Donetsk, and perhaps one or two other districts and cities in the east, as Russia looks to turn this part of Ukraine into a sort of buffer against future NATO expansion. Sanctions can also make a difference to Russian calculations.

On the second observation, let’s be clear: Ukraine joining NATO is indeed a provocation for Russia, whoever is in charge, and parallels here can be made with the experiences of Cuba, a country that had also been constantly threatened by its nearest neighbour. Cuba never joined the Warsaw Treaty Organisation (a counterweight to NATO during the cold war) even though it had been on the receiving end of a (failed) US invasion. Cuba even abandoned the idea of stationing Soviet nuclear missiles on its territory to deter further US aggression, because had it done so, this would have led to a world war and nuclear annihilation. Interestingly, the US argument put forward at the time was that Soviet military bases on its doorstep was… a provocation and an imminent threat to its security.

There are of course many other matters that pertain to the Ukrainian crisis. Internally, it is emboldening far right militias, who have never been completely trusting of Ukraine’s President and have often accused him of making too many ‘concessions’ to Moscow. Memories of the 2014 overthrow of the then democratically elected President Victor Yanukovich are still fresh in many people’s minds.

There is also the issue of NATO and its ability, or more accurately, inability, to maintain some semblance of unity. During one of Macron’s recent visits to Russia, French officials hinted at the possibility of Ukraine becoming neutral one day, to the great dismay of many US and British officials. Macron later said that there cannot be European security without Russian security. Germany has also refused to cancel altogether, as opposed to suspend, the Nord stream 2 pipeline which transports gas directly from Russia to western Europe.

And there is no denying that western accusations levelled against Russia for violating international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbouring state (which Russia is clearly guilty of) may seem hypocritical, given the West’s own history of unlawful imperialist adventures, most recently against Iraq and Yugoslavia, not to mention recognition of illegally created states.

To many observers there is already a framework for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in place and that is the Minsk agreements, signed by Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany in 2014 and 2015 and which call for: a permanent ceasefire by all warring factions, nationwide elections, and the re-incorporation of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions into Ukraine proper under a decentralised (possibly federal) structure. The withdrawal of all foreign troops can or rather must be inserted into the agreements.

The task then is not to declare that the Minsk accords are dead and buried, as many on both sides have done in the last few weeks, months and years, but to revisit and revise them to meet current realities – yesterday’s peace talks in Belarus is certainly a step in the right direction. Perhaps a period of transition of one or two years before they are fully implemented might be the way forward. The alternative is more war, more deaths and more destruction, which most people, most of all the peoples of Ukraine and Russia, do not want or deserve.

Going back to the two experts mentioned earlier, one is a former head of MI6 and the other a former head of the British army.

Theo Kyriacou was a former teacher in Ukraine