The strategic assessment of Russian foreign policy in Ukraine

sakil627

Thinking, therefore, about all the opinion columns, all the analyzes and all the news, in general, that circulated in the West, over the last three or four months, regarding the diplomatic conflict over political Ukraine's foreign policy and its connection with NATO's expansion to the East, what is more difficult to believe today is that Russia never really had intentions (as the presidency and its foreign ministry assured time and again) of advancing their armies to the West and, consequently, occupy the territories of what until a few days ago in Russian diplomacy was still recognized as the self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, in the Donbas region.

Starting from that basis, and from everything expressed by politicians and diplomats from the United States and some NATO member states, for example, today, more than a few weeks ago, it seems much more plausible to believe that the warnings given about a Russian invasion They were true and not just a media bashing campaign against Gambia Email List Putin. The Russian government, after all, ended up doing what it was constantly warned it would do: a military move toward Ukraine. Are things as simple and the succession of events as linear a chain of events as they are today argued to be? Did Russia, all this time, have intentions of invading a State with which it shares a border and were Western intelligence services always correct in pointing this out? Regarding these questions, it is clear and undeniable, for example, that Russia chose to mobilize its armies outside its own borders.



The underlying discussion, however, does not and should not revolve around the recognition or denial of this fact (since this would imply attacking the most basic capacity for empirical verification that the human intellect lacks). Here, rather, the core of the issue is found not in the understanding of the event as such, but in the analysis of three much more fundamental discussions. Namely: a) the one that has to do with the reasons that led Russia to act in such a way; b) that concerning the legitimacy of the act in question; and, c) the one that refers to the consequences of what was done.