Abstract
The Russian special military operation in Ukraine is a continuation of politics by other means. There are several factors that triggered it, but the primary being NATO’s agenda to expand to Russia’s border, using Ukraine’s indication to become its member as a pretext. Ukraine is a sovereign country and has the right to move westward, but at the same time, Russia’s security concerns cannot be ignored. Ukraine’s membership in NATO is an invitation for the latter to come too close to Russia. If the United States, Britain or France will not allow anyone to encroach into their spheres of influence, why should Russia sit back and not resist the advances of NATO? America does not share a land border with the Solomon Islands, but threw a tantrum when the latter signed a military deal with China in 2022. NATO is a Cold War relic – the Cold War has ended, why is it moving eastward? What if Ukraine as a sovereign country maintains neutrality and retains its dual relations with the East and West? Rather than reverting to a Cold War mentality, the western actors should prioritize peace and refrain further from making provocative statements that can cause a nuclear war. The special military operation could have been prevented or ended a few months after it started if some action-backed utterances were not made by key western actors. In the wake of Donald Trump’s indication to end the conflict if elected president, this paper seeks to analyse how the provocative statements of key Western leaders triggered Russia’s response, aborted negotiation and recommended that they stop making inflammatory remarks to not truncate the plan of the president-elect.
Keywords: Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Special Military Operation, United States.