Poseidon’s Trident: Understanding What Shapes the War in Ukraine

by Admin (Posted on July 18, 2023)

By Moshi Israel

It’s a truism that truth is the first casualty of war. Truth in relation to the conflict in Ukraine has been the victim of one of the most sophisticated propaganda campaigns, perhaps since the end of the cold war. The media has largely chosen sides and any reliable sources have been relegated to the dark corners of public debate.

This conflict has been more controversial than those in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, DRC, Central African Republic, Iraq, and Palestine. To many in the West, the war is dangerous because the people involved have ‘blue eyes’ they are not some distant brown people from the Far East or the usual black victims from Africa. Besides, this war is taking place in Europe; the bastion of civilization! However, the rest of the world deems this war dangerous because of the possibility of a nuclear confrontation and all its gory consequences.

This opinion is my attempt at explaining the shape of the Ukrainian conflict and, perhaps, by understanding ‘what’ or ‘who’ is shaping the conflict, maybe we can be able to identify the ‘why’ or the actual cause(s) of the conflict in Ukraine.

Knowing the major actors in Ukraine is the first step to understanding the shape of the conflict. Those who are familiar with Greek mythology, know of the famous Greek god and Zeus’ brother Poseidon. He is the god of the sea and his weapon is a Trident which he uses to calm the sea or administer violence. The main actors in Ukraine are the West, led by Washington on the one hand, Russia on the other hand, and Ukraine sandwiched in the middle, forming a three-pronged spear or a Trident of problems. Control of the sea, as you will discover is also a vital aspect of the conflict. Thus, the tensions in Ukraine are in the exact shape of Poseidon’s Trident. The major causes of the war stem from these three actors and so do the potential solutions to the hostilities.

Having established the major actors in the conflict, now we go about understanding their core interests. Two paradigms in International Relations can help explain the involvement of the West and Russia in Ukraine;

The first Paradigm is the realist theory of international relations. It is premised on the three S’s; Statism, Survival, and Self-interest. The theory asserts that states are the core actors in international relations, they act alone, are rational, and act solely based on self-interest. Therefore, the Russian military intervention in Ukraine is based on the rational fear of the latter falling under the influence of the West. A Ukraine under Western influence is a threat to Moscow’s security concerns which include; having a hostile NATO member on Russia’s borders, losing a huge buffer zone against NATO, and losing access to the Black Sea. One of the main reasons for annexing Crimea was so Russia could gain access to the strategic naval base at Sevastopol, home to Moscow’s Black Sea fleet.

On the other hand, if the United States gained a foothold in Ukraine, it would be able to create yet one more security headache for Moscow. Militarising Ukraine would also keep the Russian military busy and weaken them from posing a threat to American interests elsewhere. Also, there is the simple fact that just one more addition to NATO makes the alliance stronger and Russia weaker. The grand NATO strategy toward Moscow is to become so big and dangerous with the hope that its sheer size and assets would deter Moscow from attempting any manoeuver that might require NATO retaliation.

The second Paradigm is the civilizational approach. This approach asserts that whereas States remain major actors on the international stage, their interests, alliances, and conflicts are increasingly shaped by cultural and civilizational factors. They agree with the realists on the fact that the world is anarchical and rife with tribal and nationality conflicts, however, the most dangerous conflicts are those among states and groups from different civilizations. Furthermore, they assume that the world is divided into two, a dominant Western civilization and the non-western one, made up of all the rest of the world even thou they may be distinct from one another. The civilizational approach acknowledges the existence of forces of integration but asserts that it is these very forces that cause the counterforces of cultural assertions and civilizational consciousness.

This approach provides an understanding of the events that happened in 2013-2014 in Ukraine during the Maidan uprising that led to the ouster of the pro-Russian president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. The events led to pro-Russian resistance in the Eastern part of Ukraine. A cultural clash emerged between the Russian-majority-speaking East and the nationalists in Western Ukraine. The Donbas and Lugansk regions wanted independence from the rest of Ukraine and a civil war ensued along cultural and civilizational lines.

Religion and language are key aspects of cultural and civilizational identity. This is why the formation of the Ukrainian Independent Orthodox Church after being denied autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church was a major escalation of tensions between Moscow and Kyiv. Moscow responded by excommunicating the Patriarch Filaret of Kiev and appointing their own Patriarch of Ukraine in the eastern city of Kharkiv. Also, one of the reasons given for Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine was to protect the Russian-speaking people in eastern and southern Ukraine from the Ukrainian military. The close relationship between the government and Ukrainian nationalists who are hostile to anything Russian also served as a major escalation in the conflict.

Hence, the realist and civilizational theories adequately capture the major causes of the conflict in Ukraine. It is also why, the solutions to the conflict can be found by looking at the conflict through this lens.

Following the civilizational approach, the end result of the war would be the division of Ukraine into two spheres, Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine. This is the solution that Moscow has tried to enforce through its military campaign. This would entail the demilitarisation of Ukraine to the extent that it gives up the East including Crimea as a consequence of losing the war. The new republics that form from this split would be autonomous and heavily reliant on the Russian Federation. The division of Ukraine can also happen through diplomatic negotiations and ending hostilities. This is the most likely outcome.

On the other hand, the realist approach would entail that the strongest party to the war will emerge the victor and the defeated and weak party would be subjugated to the terms dictated by the former. If the West and Ukraine win the war, it means the latter would join NATO and perhaps take back Crimea. It would also mean that Moscow accepts humiliating terms of peace and in the worst-case scenario, it would lead to the disintegration and collapse of the Russian Federation.

Also, if Moscow wins in Ukraine, it could force intervention from countries like Poland or the rest of NATO which would, of course, lead to another global war, or, the West will quietly retreat and forget about the whole Ukrainian chapter. However, again in this instance, with Moscow’s military victory, the division of Ukraine is the most plausible outcome.  In case of a stalemate, Ukrainian neutrality and special status as a buffer state between NATO and Moscow would be the go-to solution.

The Conflict in Ukraine will inevitably end, what is important is how it ends.

Moshi Israel is a Research Fellow with DWC

 

 

 

 

 

 

---