When it comes to Ukraine, Russia is dealing with a failed state perched right next to its border. Therefore, any interaction with this entity lies outside the traditional legal framework applicable to sovereign states.
International politics, including the wars, has always been played out among the states. A full-fledged state would go to great lengths to protect its basic interests and values. But there is a couple of things no state would ever do. For one, no state would fast-track its own destruction or agree to be bossed around by another government calling the shots for it both on the tactical level and strategy-wise.
Even countries like South Korea, Japan or Germany that, let’s face it, have been literally occupied by the US administrations for over 70 years have the audacity to pursue their own foreign policy, which is proved by their ongoing attempts to maintain relationships with Russia or China. If Germany were an ultimate DC puppet, it is safe to assume the US officials would not have had to cheer for the Nord Stream bombings in 2022.
If we are witnessing a subservient penchant for self-sacrifice coupled with a commitment to enforce somebody else’s injunctions in matters of war and peace, we are dealing with a failed state, which can be anything ranging from a private military company to a rebellious militia to a terrorist organisation. Whatever it is, any interaction with this entity lies outside the traditional legal framework applicable to sovereign states.
That may be the exact situation Russia is having to deal with in Ukraine whose deadly turmoil was largely precipitated by repeated botched attempts to forge a proper statehood upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. Everything else, including Kiev’s tactical calls, may stem from that failed mission.
An armed struggle against a non-state international player is a peculiar phenomenon in a way that disqualifies the standards of traditional global politics as irrelevant and unviable.
Importantly, any state as well as its government agencies can negotiate with a non-state counterpart. But the goals of such talks have nothing to do with conventional diplomacy. When it comes to traditional inter-state interactions, the political endgame suggests a sustainable peaceful outcome whereby both parties acknowledge each other’s status and existence. However, if one party is, say, a terrorist group, the very idea of mutual recognition goes out the window as the two entities are fundamentally and irreconcilably different.
Negotiations with terrorists typically imply hammering out a short-term solution, citing the challenges that will inevitably take time to rectify. But beyond the tactical considerations, states do not normally strike deals with non-state political players. Moreover, they strive to get rid of these illegal structures. Put differently, negotiating the release of hostages or a hijacked airport does not legitimise the hijackers’ status.
Secondly, the opponent being a failed state does not necessarily connote weakness. Far from it, history suggests that many rebel organisations and terrorist groups were heavily armed and could be posing a decades-long threat. Much more important is the failed state’s control over the territory and its population. Considerable control equals significant resources and an ability to force and even coerce people to fight for the failed state’s cause. It gets even worse when the extremist groups enjoy substantial external support, as was the case with Syria, the North Caucasus or Ulster where the Irish militants were being armed and bankrolled by the US to oppose the British presence.
Historically, some territories fell outside the government’s control for quite a long period of time. Their temporary rulers had access to the ample resources that would allow them to survive and persist. For instance, long after Vietnam had toppled the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, parts of the country were still controlled by the rogue radicals. The local peasants would even mine the roads for the government forces, either held at gunpoint or brainwashed by the propaganda.
Thirdly, the external administrations manipulating the non-state players never put the odds of the failed state’s survival above their own security. It means they may misevaluate the reaction of the puppet subordinate’s opponent. As long as the terrorist group’s members neither officially represent nor are citizens of the sponsor state, the latter’s government cannot be technically held responsible for their actions.
Back in the day, experts claimed that some of the Syrian radical movements were externally funded. China also extensively aided radical Marxist organisations across Southeast Asia. But it never led to China actually clashing militarily with the countries terrorised by such groups. In the 20th century, the USSR would side with various rebels opposing the US and its allies. Apparently, it never devolved into an open war.
Only a state’s explicit encroachment on the other state’s sovereign territory can set off a war. Perhaps that is why the US rules out the possibility of a much-dreaded direct conflict with Russia over its Ukrainian policy.
Finally, an armed struggle against a non-state player does not automatically turn the people inhabiting the failed state-controlled territory into an enemy. Even though many of them may be sympathetic towards their occupiers or even cherish future plans under their rule, most tend to be regular strugglers or politically disengaged individuals waiting for things to work themselves out. That is why conventional states always face a moral conundrum regarding the use of force that can inadvertently kill the local civilians. Most of them are being held hostage by the terrorists in control.
Crucially, future decisions overwhelmingly depend on the country’s national culture. While the US or European governments may have no qualms about hitting the civilian population, if need be, Russia exercises much more self-restraint, especially seeing as it deals with its neighbours.
Non-state players, on the other hand, encounter no such moral scruples. They never swear by any civic values. Instead, they are motivated by external orders, their own greed, or their ideology. This makes terror tactics a viable option for them.
If the legal framework for international interactions is anything to go by and Russia indeed faces a failed state, these subtle considerations can boost people’s emotional coping mechanisms as the current events unfold.