Russia v Ukraine War - The Human Rights Question

 As I vaguely recall, Ukraine was oppressive to Russian natives residing in the Donbas region of Ukraine who took up arms to fight for respect and dignity – a human rights cause.

Russia negotiated several treaties known as the Minsk agreements to end the fighting but this subsequently broke down. Russia declared war on Ukraine to protect its tribal people with the use of force – this seems to me to be a justified measure.

I just checked Donbas history and found that: -

1. Along with other territories inhabited by Ukrainians, the Donbas was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War.

2. In 1943 the Operation Little Saturn and Donbas strategic offensive by the Red Army resulted in the return of Donbas to Soviet control. The war had taken its toll, leaving the region both destroyed and depopulated.

3. In the 1991 referendum on Ukrainian independence, 83.9% of voters in Donetsk Oblast and 83.6% in Luhansk Oblast supported independence from the Soviet Union.

4. The region’s economy deteriorated severely in the ensuing years. By 1993, industrial production had collapsed, and average wages had fallen by 80% since 1990. The Donbas fell into crisis, with many accusing the new central government in Kyiv of mismanagement and neglect.

5. Donbas coal miners went on strike in 1993, causing a conflict that was described by historian Lewis Siegelbaum as “a struggle between the Donbas region and the rest of the country”. One strike leader said that Donbas people had voted for independence because they wanted “power to be given to the localities, enterprises, cities”, not because they wanted heavily centralised power moved from “Moscow to Kyiv”.

6. Small strikes continued throughout the 1990s, though demands for autonomy faded. Some subsidies to Donbas heavy industries were eliminated, and many mines were closed by the Ukrainian government because of liberalising reforms pushed for by the World Bank.

7. Power in the Donbas became concentrated in a regional political elite, known as oligarchs, during the early 2000s. Privatisation of state industries led to rampant corruption.

8. In other parts of Ukraine during the 2000s, the Donbas was often perceived as having a “thug culture”, as being a “Soviet cesspool”, and as “backward”.

9. Despite this portrayal, surveys taken across that decade and during the 1990s showed strong support for remaining within Ukraine and insignificant support for separatism.

10. From the beginning of March 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donbas, as part of the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and the Euromaidan movement. These demonstrations, which followed the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which were part of a wider group of concurrent pro-Russian protests across southern and eastern Ukraine, escalated in April 2014 into a war between the Russian-backed separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR respectively), and the Ukrainian government.

11. Amid that conflict, the self-proclaimed republics held referendums on the status of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts on 11 May 2014. In the referendums, viewed as illegal by Ukraine and undemocratic by the international community, about 90% voted for the independence of the DPR and LPR.

12. The initial protests in the Donbas were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government. Russian involvement at this stage was limited to its voicing of support for the demonstrations.

13. This unrest, however, only evolved into an armed conflict because of Russian military backing for what had been a marginal group as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

14. Fighting continued through the summer of 2014, and by August 2014, the Ukrainian “Anti-Terrorist Operation” was able to vastly shrink the territory under the control of the pro-Russian forces, and came close to regaining control of the Russo-Ukrainian border.

15. In response to the deteriorating situation in the Donbas, Russia abandoned what has been called its “hybrid war” approach, and began a conventional invasion of the region. As a result of the Russian invasion, DPR and LPR insurgents regained much of the territory they had lost during the Ukrainian government’s preceding military offensive.

16. Only this Russian intervention prevented an immediate Ukrainian resolution to the conflict. This forced the Ukrainian side to seek the signing of a ceasefire agreement. Called the Minsk Protocol, this was signed on 5 September 2014.

17. As this failed to stop the fighting, another agreement, called Minsk II was signed on 12 February 2015. This agreement called for the eventual reintegration of the Donbas republics into Ukraine, with a level of autonomy.

18. he aim of the Russian intervention in the Donbas was to establish pro-Russian governments that, upon reincorporation into Ukraine, would facilitate Russian interference in Ukrainian politics. The Minsk agreements were thus highly favourable to the Russian side, as their implementation would accomplish these goals.

This breakdown of historical account does not seem to me that Russia is attempting to take over Ukraine. It is merely seeking for a level ground to resolve the conflict in the Donbas and not allowing the use of superior state power from Ukraine to force a resolution. 

There is no record that Russia stopped or tried to stop any peoples from leaving the Soviet Union. This to me is a fair balance that promotes human dignity, fairness and respect which is what human rights is all about.

The Donbas does not appear to be part of Ukraine originally. It was incorporated into Ukraine after the Russian Civil War and later recovered by the Soviet Union in 1943. There does not appear to be any justification for the use of superior state power to control what obtains in the Donbas.

International support for Ukraine against Russia appears to stem from the involvement of the world Bank in recommending economic reforms that Ukraine had accepted to implement. Russia is not a fan of the floating forex rate regime introduced in 1973 with safeguards operated by the IMF and World Bank.

Inflation, capital flight and ineffective local fiscal policy are the bane of floating exchange rate. The world needs to return to fixed exchange rate as it was with coinage. The notion that Russia is oppressing former Soviet states does not appear to be justified.

Human rights are designed to promote freedoms, dignity, respect and fairness. History is very effective for understanding where we are coming from and where we are headed. If care is not taken, we may be heading for a 3rd World War, but there is not justification for that. Human rights must prevail..