The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict first erupted on February 24, with many Western mainstream media denouncing Russia under Vladimir Putin’s leadership as an “invader.” Yet what we must understand, are the developments and issues that led to its outbreak.

The origins can be traced back some 30 years, when the Cold War ended in 1991 due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union (USSR). The disbanding also contributed to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, a military alliance established in May 1951 by the USSR alongside East-Central European countries such as Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. The pact, as a balance of power against the military threat from NATO, was created in 1949. The Cold War era saw ideological strife as well as an arms race between the two blocs.

As the Cold War came to an end, things calmed down. The USSR could no longer sustain the Warsaw Pact, and its leader Mikhail Gorbachev had taken the stand to dissolve the organization in the hope, and with the “promise,” that NATO membership would not be extended to Eastern Europe. There was no written arrangement between the USSR and the U.S.; this was more of an understanding between the two superpowers. In 1990, after the reunification of Germany, the U.S., Britain and France assured USSR leaders NATO would not expand eastward; the USSR was, however, never offered a formal guarantee.

Breach of trust

In 1996, U.S. President Bill Clinton called for NATO to add some East-Central European nations as members by the end of 1999. The original assurance given by Western leaders was not just violated once or twice, but as many as 14 times.

Since the conclusion of the Cold War, NATO has accepted 14 new members, all located east of Germany—in flagrant violation of its promise not to expand. Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union after the Cold War, considers the expansion process a threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In other words, NATO seems to have besieged Russia militarily.

In fact, Estonia and Latvia, former republics of the USSR bordering Russia, are already NATO states. Members of the alliance, including Britain and France, even conducted joint military exercises in Estonia at some 100 km from the Russian border between 2021 and early 2022.

The international community, especially the U.S., should not forget the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. At that time, an American reconnaissance aircraft detected the USSR missile launch site under construction in the Caribbean republic, located about 90 km from the U.S. Under the John F. Kennedy administration, the U.S. considered the actions a threat to its own survival. As a result, Kennedy called on the USSR to halt the construction of the site and the shipment of ammunition to Cuba, and threatened to invade Cuba if the USSR did not comply. Finally, after several days of tense negotiations, Moscow agreed to stop missile deployment, marking the end of the crisis.

Not many people realize it was the U.S. that had triggered this crisis by earlier stationing PGM-19 Jupiter medium-range ballistic missiles in Izmir, Turkey, not far from the USSR’s border. At the time, the latter’s leader, Nikita Khrushchev, considered his country’s sovereignty and survival to be at risk. Consequently, among the conditions for the USSR to stop sending missiles to Cuba was that the U.S. must withdraw its missiles from Turkey.

Peace negotiations

The Cuban Missile Crisis, though 60 years ago, remains relevant today. Current U.S. leaders should learn from history that Russian authorities are willing to do anything in the face of provocation or threat. It should be noted this opinion was already voiced by then U.S. Ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, in 2008 during the NATO Conference in Bucharest, Romania, where the President George W. Bush administration openly invited Ukraine to join the bloc.

For Russia, Ukraine is of high strategic importance to its survival and sovereignty. World War II taught Russians an important lesson in this regard: When Nazi German troops occupied Ukraine, Moscow eventually lost access to the Black Sea and the Caucasus.

Therefore, if Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would naturally be concerned about the vulnerability of the territory’s security and integrity. Russia has repeatedly opposed NATO expansion since 1999, when countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined the alliance. Its last request before the outbreak of the ongoing war in Ukraine came in December 2021, when the U.S. and NATO were expected to deliver a written guarantee that Russia’s sovereignty would not be compromised. However, this was not given due consideration.

There is no denying what is happening in Ukraine is a human tragedy. The Ukrainians have fallen victim to a broader conflict, namely Russia’s dispute with NATO.

Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob, called for a peaceful agreement. The Malaysian delegation to the UN has called on all parties to negotiate for peaceful resolution in line with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) approach. Malaysia and almost all ASEAN members (except Singapore) refused to join the economic sanctions issued by Western countries. This response shows Southeast Asian countries are still not ready to pinpoint the one party responsible for triggering the current conflict.

The solution to the Russo-Ukrainian war must be achieved through negotiation, not ammunition. Ukraine should cease its attempts to join NATO, and, at the same time, Russia should withdraw its troops. This war does not benefit either side; arms manufacturers and weapon industries are the only winners here.

In addition, the two countries have had time-honored close ties in terms of ethnicity, language, religion and history and therefore should not go to war, but instead strengthen their relationship.

Russia should learn from its bitter experiences during the USSR occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). Victory on the battlefield will not necessarily lead to victory in the long run. It is essential for Ukraine to realize they are not considered part of the U.S. strategic interest until the latter is willing to send its troops to defend it—as it would when it comes to West European countries. Ukraine is only a pawn on the U.S. political chessboard to balance Russia.

The author is an associate professor at the University of Malaya.