Russia, Donbas, and the International Community

The Donbas or Donbass region in Ukraine has experienced multiple diplomatic failures. When diplomats fail, the military enters, with only one question remaining: which country’s military? In this case, Russia gave the EU and the U.N. a chance—since at least 2018—to use peacekeepers and economic aid to improve a neighboring volatile region. Unfortunately, the international community has not managed to generate stable governance, so Russia has entered to do what others could not—provide stability. 

Anyone unable to speak and read Russian will not fully understand the plight of Russian speakers outside Russia after 1991. Conflicts in Russian-speaking zones ex-Russia today—some thirty years post-Soviet Union—indicate the international community’s unwillingness to take responsibility for refugee resettlement and citizenship in regions influenced by feckless politicians and/or mafia. Nagorno-Karabakh (Нагорный Карабах) and Crimea (Республика Крым) already exposed the U.N.’s limited powers, and now it is Donbas’ time. To any diligent student of history and uneven economic development, Donbas returning to Russia was only a matter of time. Russian speakers form sizable minorities there: 43.6% in Donets’k and 44.8% in Luhans’k. Russia claims they are mistreated, though neglect would be the more appropriate term.

Should have included Mariupol, a port city.

Vladimir Putin’s latest actions require the world’s attention to turn to the rights and safety of Ukrainian speakers and minority Tatars in Donbas. Were the American president or anyone on his Cabinet experts in something besides Russophobia, I’d be more interested in their approach and their opinions. As it stands, Putin’s reputation will not depend on a successful transfer of political power in Donbas—already a foregone conclusion—but the region’s governance after this week and after next year. No doubt Russian soldiers are well-trained, but military prowess and peacekeeping are not natural partners. What happens in Donbas will determine whether Putin can call himself a diplomat rather than just another shrewd politician. For the sake of the world, let’s hope Putin’s leadership is better than the U.N.’s, and his intentions more pure than the Americans. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2022)

SSN 2770-002X

Our borders were not of our own drawing. They were drawn in the distant colonial metropoles of London, Paris, and Lisbon with no regard for the ancient nations that they cleaved apart... we agreed that we would settle for the borders that we inherited [from the international community]. But we would still pursue continental political, economic, and legal integration. Rather than form nations that looked ever backward into history with a dangerous nostalgia, we chose to look forward to a greatness none of our many nations and peoples had ever known. We chose to follow the rules of the OAU [Organisation of African Unity] and the United Nations Charter not because our borders satisfied us but because we wanted something greater forged in peace. We believe that all states formed from empires that have collapsed or retreated have many peoples in them yearning for integration with peoples in neighbouring states... However, Kenya rejects such a yearning from being pursued by force. We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression.

-- Martin Kimani, Kenya at U.N. (2/21/22)