Russia’s action not unprovoked

THE EDITOR: I write to take issue with the claim of Ukraine's ambassador (see September 4 article by Janelle de Souza: "Ukraine ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago: Putin's war...") that the Russian action was "unjustified and unprovoked."

This war could easily have been avoided had Ukraine upheld its commitments under the Minsk accords. The war also could have been brought to an end in April, when Russia agreed at negotiations to end its action if Ukraine would uphold the Minsk accords and agree to end all moves on its part to join NATO or to allow NATO military assets on its territory. Ukraine reneged on that agreement after a visit from then British prime minister Boris Johnson.

The simple fact of the matter is that having NATO military assets in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, and for that reason unacceptable to it. President Putin well explained the threat as being simply that NATO could in that case obliterate Moscow by hypersonic missile requiring just seven minutes.

This is entirely analogous to how US president Kennedy (ca. 1960s) viewed the missiles installed by Soviet premier Khrushchev in Cuba. Those missiles were a mere 90 miles away from Miami. Their presence was an unacceptable existential threat to the US. Therefore, Kennedy was quite well justified to require their removal. Putin was likewise quite well justified to make the security demands and guarantees that he did prior to the launch of the Russian special military operation. Had Ukraine (and its Western guarantors) upheld the Minsk accords, there would have been no cause for military action.

While it is true that the world by and large reacted with condemnation of the Russian action, the more considered consensus across the global South now better appreciates the Russian stance. The simple fact of the matter now clearly apparent is that Russia was indeed provoked, and unnecessarily so. The collective West provoked the war before it started, and chose to prolong the war (in April) when it could easily have been stopped, per agreement between the parties.

The question to ask must therefore be why is the collective West (US/UK/NATO) choosing to wage war against Russia, using Ukraine as cat's-paw proxy to do so.

I would urge the Government of TT to consider carefully the matter. On our part, we do not have to provoke the US or the UK. At the same time, a principled reconsideration of our diplomatic posture in this matter would appear advisable. We ought not to be out of step with the principled consensus emerging out of the global South that the collective West has overplayed its hand in this matter, and for reasons that on close examination are far from noble.

DR SIDNEY THOMAS

via e-mail