WAR IN UKRAINE: Why It Happened & What’s To Come

This is part one of a multi-part report on the war in Ukraine, its impact around the world, and what it means for Americans.

For more than a month, newspapers, radio, TV, and social media throughout the world have been reporting on and discussing, in depth, Russia’s initiated military invasion of Ukraine, which has prompted the largest conventional offense in Europe since World War II.

However, military experts have noted that the Ukranian resistance Russia encountered was unexpected when they thought they would take Ukraine swiftly and without much pushback.

As of this publication date, more than 4.3 million Ukranians have fled their war-torn country. The UN Human Rights Office estimates that more than 1,035 civilians have been killed and 1,650 have been injured. With recent photos of dead bodies on Ukranian streets and in shallow graves, government sources in Ukraine estimate, to western media, that the numbers could be 5,000 dead or higher.

The UK Ministry of Defence also reports that Russia has been attacking populated civilian areas, such as hospitals and schools in Kharkiv,
Mariupol and Chernihiv, likely in response to the strong Ukrainian resistance. The UK Ministry draws comparisons between these tactics and the tactics Russia employed in its takeover of nearby Chechnya in 1999 and Syria in 2016.

Is this the start of World War III? Is the threat of nuclear war on the horizon? Why should this “war” thousands of miles away be of concern to Americans, in general, and to the Penn State Greater Allegheny (PSUGA) campus, in particular?

Dr. Douglas Charles, professor of history at PSUGA, said that there is much going on here—historical, political, strategic, and economic issues—at the root of all of this. He added that this conflict will not result in World War III, but that should not be the primary concern to us as Americans.

“Nuclear weapons, for the most part, have always served as a deterrent because we know what they can do,” he said. “I would think the concern is over what is (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s mental state. Is he rational…because no rational person would use nuclear weapons because that would lead to others using them back on you!

“Perhaps on paper it [Russia] has what seems to be a powerful military,” Charles said in an e-mail.

“We remember the old and strong Soviet military, but that is never a reality until it is put to the test.” Russia’s military is unmotivated, lacks training, and with their supply chain problems, success does not seem likely, he added.

Comparatively, Charles said that Ukraine has a lot pushing it towards success, including “defending homes, strong motivation to fight, shorter supply lines, getting military aid from the West, and getting likely intelligence information.”

He also explained that when Ukraine was part of the former Soviet Union, it was known as its “breadbasket” because Ukraine produces a lot of food and it also has an abundance of natural resources like natural gas, iron, coal, titanium, and other non-metallic raw materials.

“Russia’s economy is primarily energy-based,” Charles said,” so there are economic interests Russia would have in holding intimate control over Ukraine when Ukraine is moving closer to an alliance with western Europe…intimately allied economically, politically, strategically…to the West rather than to Russia,” he said, adding that “Russia/Putin doesn’t want that.”

There are thought leaders who ask the question of whether Putin thinks he is “entitled” to Ukraine. What could Ukraine provide Russia that would justify war? Charles said history is part of it.

“It comes down to maintaining his dictatorship, keeping control over regions Russia has seen as historically theirs, economic interests, strategic interests,” he said. “I heard one analyst argue: ‘remove Putin and the whole thing doesn’t happen.’ Maybe, maybe not. Clearly, there are a lot of motivations and interests behind why anyone or any country does something,” Charles explained.

In many ways, this has also been a war of information. The EU (European Union) banned Russian state-affiliated news outlets such as Russia Today and Sputnik. Russia’s government banned Facebook and severely restricted other social media applications and made “false” reporting on the war punishable by up to 15 years in prison, which seemed to be a continuation of Russian restrictions on the press and free speech.

“One must understand what state media is,” Charles said. “It is putting out widely, only one view and the view that the ‘state’ wants. Freedom of speech is an American thing, applying in our borders. Other countries have this, too. Russia does not,” he added.

But myths have always been present during wartime and now memes and urban legends take the place of propaganda and myths. Social media has allowed for information about the war to be conveyed at unprecedented speed, to the extent that even minor details about the war have gone viral.

When asked about how people can distinguish between facts and propaganda, Charles has a few questions that people can ask.

“Consider the source. Who are they? What is their motivation? Can it be confirmed? Is there a bias? What is it? And so on.”

Charles added that people “must try to use their critical reasoning.”

“I suspect social media perhaps gets around propaganda outlets,” Charles said, “and social media also personalizes all of this because you see what ordinary Ukranians are recording and making public. This isn’t being sanitized by some government media,” he concluded.

Story by: Yousuf Ibrahim (yli5000@psu.edu)