Observing | watching the war, what do some non-NATO countries see from the Ukraine crisis?

The Paper's reporter Chen Qinhan

Russia has launched a "special military operation" against Ukraine for nearly three weeks, the war and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine have been carried out on a dual track, and the Western countries led by the United States have imposed many rounds of sanctions on Russia, but there is no reinforcement plan, and the war situation is still precarious.

"This is not a danger to a distant country, it must be considered as a matter for our own country." Japan's deputy chief cabinet secretary, Seiji Kihara, said on a television show. At the same time, the nerves of South Korea to safeguard national strategic security are also tense.

Under the fire of war, the United States and other NATO countries refused substantial military assistance to Ukraine, prompting the two countries to ignite a sense of crisis, despite the military alliance with the United States, but there are still voices in the two countries to strengthen national defense, and even politicians provoke "nuclear" nerves. At the same time, some small countries, which have traditionally been far from strife, have reacted with rare backlash.

In this geopolitical storm, even countries thousands of miles away from the war are difficult to stay out of the matter, and there are worries, reflections and revelations while considering countermeasures.

Reflections after a sense of crisis

As the only Asian country in the Group of Seven (G7) and a country close to Russia with territorial and historical problems, Japan has also followed closely after the severe sanctions imposed on Russia by Europe and the United States.

"Relations with Russia can no longer be viewed as normally as they used to be." Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced at the prime minister's residence on February 27 that financial sanctions would be imposed on Russia. It also means that Japan has put aside its expectations of tinkering with Russia for diplomatic relations.

On the eve of the outbreak of the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Japan took precautions and believed that it must take a tough response this time, aiming to send a signal to the outside world. Japanese Foreign Minister Lin Fangzheng said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on February 15 that russia's military actions must be resolutely responded to.

At the same time, Kyodo News Agency said that Japanese political circles have been worried about the situation in Ukraine affecting the security environment in East Asia. Kishida Fumio said at a press conference on the 3rd that the revision of the "National Security Guarantee Strategy" will take into account Russia's military actions and emphasize the thorough strengthening of defense forces. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party secretary-general Toshimitsu Motegi reiterated on a television show on March 6 that Japan's defense spending should not be tied to the 1% gross domestic product (GDP) standard.

Under the provisions of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, which entered into force in 1952, the United States has a defensive obligation to Japan, and the Japan-U.S. alliance is both the cornerstone of Japan's own security and the means on which it relies most on its security strategy in Northeast Asia.

With the upheaval of geopolitics, following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Russia's military operations against Ukraine, and the United States and the West, some Japanese have begun to re-examine their own security environment.

"The great powers are unreliable, and Japan will soon be in the same situation as Ukraine." On a February 14 episode on Fuji Tv, former Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto said he deeply felt the danger of entrusting his country's security to other countries. Seiji Kihara said on the show that it is necessary to further strengthen the Japan-US alliance and improve deterrence and response capabilities.

Koichi Nakano, a professor of political science at Sophia University in Japan, told the www.thepaper.cn that seeing Russia's military operations against Ukraine has exacerbated people's uneasiness. There are two views colliding in Japan, one is that Japan must militarize, and the other is that Japan must strengthen diplomatic efforts to prevent conflict. He argues that "a commitment to diplomatic efforts will not lead to such a crisis, rather than considering whether the Japan-U.S. alliance is reliable." ”

On the other hand, South Korea has also suffered from security problems with the United States.

More than four years ago, former U.S. President Donald Trump said he would respond to North Korea's behavior with "fire and anger," sparking the theory of a war crisis. South Korean President Moon Jae-in said bluntly in his 2017 Easter speech: "No country should launch military operations on the Korean Peninsula without South Korea's approval." This is seen as the most intense response of the composition to the US side considering military options.

In addition, south Korea and the United States have been negotiating for 18 months since September 2019 over the topic of military spending in South Korea. South Korea rejected the Then Trump administration's demand to exponentially increase the cost of U.S. troops in South Korea. It was not until April 2021 that the two countries reached a six-year defense cost-sharing agreement. Under the agreement, South Korea paid 1.1833 trillion won ($1.059 billion) that year, up 13.9 percent from 2019, to sustain about 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea. By 2022, this fee will rise by 5.4%. The United States has maintained a military presence in South Korea since the time of the Korean War. To this day, the United States still refuses to leave the Korean Peninsula on the grounds of the so-called "North Korean threat." On the issue of apportioning the cost of U.S. troops in South Korea, there have been people in South Korea who have criticized Seoul for paying too much.

An op-ed published in February of this year in the Hank-minh Daily said that seeing events in Ukraine could not help but remind people of a dilemma - "Are their own people really their own people?" Some people think that Ukraine is only a "pawn" for the United States and other countries, and if the United States also treats South Korea as a pawn in the process of containing the rise of great powers and dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue, it will be a more serious problem than ignoring its allied obligations.

Small Country Survival Strategies

The game of great powers, the control of small countries. Japan and South Korea, as allies of the United States, have no choice but to take coordinated action with them, while small countries that have no alliance with Western countries or even hostilities are exploring their own ways of survival in the smoke of war.

"Small countries can easily get involved in the geopolitical game of large countries, and small countries must avoid being sacrificed pawns, vassal states or being used by another party." Singapore's foreign minister, Vivian, issued a statement in Parliament on February 28 condemning and sanctioning Russian military action against Ukraine.

On March 5, Singapore announced financial sanctions against Russia and banned the export of electronics, computers and military items, becoming the first Southeast Asian country to impose sanctions on Russia, after the last time Singapore imposed unilateral sanctions on other countries was when Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978.

Faced with the Crisis in Ukraine, Singapore recognises the importance of defending its own interests. According to lianhe Zaobao, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on social media on February 28, "As a small country, we strive to maintain good relations with all countries, big and small." We do not choose sides, but plan our future according to the principles we have always upheld and long-term national interests. ”

Switzerland's move has surprised the outside world more than Singapore's rare sanctions. Switzerland's announcement on Feb. 28 of its participation in the EU's sanctions package against Russia, freezing the assets of Russian individuals and institutions in Switzerland, broke its long tradition of political neutrality.

As a small landlocked country in Europe, Switzerland is not a member of the European Union and NATO, but the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine has put it under great pressure at home and abroad, with all political parties in the country calling for sanctions against Russia and even large demonstrations in the streets. As far as the international environment is concerned, if Switzerland refuses to join the ranks of sanctions, it is likely to be sanctioned by the United States and the European Union.

Switzerland's reaction to events in Ukraine gives a variety of interpretations of "neutrality". Oliver Diglemann, a law professor at the University of Zurich, told local media that "neutrality is never a clear element carved into stone, but a tool that needs to be adjusted from time to time for new environments." ”

At present, the so-called new environment is not only about geopolitics, but also about security. Neal Jesse, a political scientist in the United States who studies small neutral states, told The Washington Post that Switzerland's sanctions against Russia are "clearly security-related" and that if they believe that defending Europe is something they want to be involved in, it also means that Europe is moving towards a new era. Recent calls for NATO membership in Sweden and Finland have confirmed this view.

Both Singapore and Switzerland are flexibly adjusting their postures to avoid being caught up in the scramble for great powers, while Venezuela, a small Latin American country, is actively entrenched.

Crude oil prices soared after the U.S. banned Russian oil imports, seeking negotiations with the Venezuelan government to secure alternative oil supplies. According to Reuters, Venezuelan President Maduro expressed his willingness to negotiate with the US side and released 2 American hostages on March 8, which was seen as intended to be exchanged for the United States to ease oil sanctions on Venezuela. Three days later, Venezuelan Vice President Rodriguez met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Turkey, and Rodriguez called the other "good friend."

The Maduro government maintains ties with the United States and strives for efforts to ease oil sanctions, while on the other hand supports Russian President Vladimir Putin and "shows loyalty" to allies. In addition, the country is negotiating with Europe. According to Al Jazeera, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Felix Plasencia and EU Foreign Policy Chief Josép Borrell met in Turkey on the 12th to express their willingness to engage in dialogue with Europe and demand the lifting of sanctions imposed on the country.

Since Maduro's re-election in 2018, Venezuela's relations with Europe and the United States have been in a state of tension, and the Ukraine crisis has provided a rare diplomatic opportunity for this small Latin American country to wander between Europe, the United States and Russia, relying on oil chips to seek a glimmer of life. Maduro said at a meeting in Lagas on March 7 that "it is time to move forward with diplomacy, facts and peace." ”

Nuclear weapons debate

In addition to the traditional geopolitical security discussions, what has attracted more attention in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is undoubtedly the global attention to the "nuclear" issue. Ukraine, a former nuclear-armed state, abandoned its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union and signed the Budapest Memorandum of Security Guarantees, in which the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom pledged to safeguard their sovereignty and national security.

"The lesson for Ukraine is that breaking its commitments to small states means that they will never give up their nuclear weapons (in the future)." According to an article on the U.S. investigative news website The Intercept, "To date, no nuclear-armed country has faced an all-out invasion by foreign powers." Such a narrative appeared in the media reports of many countries, and in the "self-defense" public opinion triggered by the Crisis in Ukraine, nuclear weapons became a hot topic.

Japan was one of the first to pick up the topic. "How can the security of the world be maintained when Russia attacks Ukraine?" Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on a Program on Fuji TV on Feb. 27 that Japan should discuss a so-called "nuclear sharing" policy, in which U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed and jointly used in Japan.

Japan is the only country in the world to have suffered a nuclear attack, and the effects of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident continue to this day, so it is secretive about nuclear weapons.

Kishida publicly stated on february 28 on the Senate Budget Committee that Japan cannot share nuclear weapons with the United States by adhering to the "three principles of non-nuclear weapons." But Abe's words, as a representative of Japan's nuclear supporters, provoked a thousand waves, especially among the country's conservatives, and the Japanese Restoration Council submitted a proposal to start the discussion with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Koichi Nakano also pointed out that "nuclear sharing" is impractical. Pacifism in postwar Japanese society was deeply rooted, and opposition to nuclear weapons was particularly strong. In the current situation, the United States fears that Russia and China will come closer and has no intention of reaching any nuclear-sharing agreement with Japan. "The Japanese government should know that there is no diplomatic benefit in having such a discussion, but only because right-wing forces such as former Prime Minister Abe and the Restoration Society are trying to take advantage of the opportunity to hype."

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin previously said at a news conference that Japanese politicians have recently frequently published fallacies related to Taiwan, and even openly made false statements that violated their own "three principles of non-nuclear weapons" and the obligations of the members of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, throwing out the topic of nuclear sharing with the United States, and fully exposing the dangerous trend of the shadow of the militarist forces in Japan.

Similarly, after the outbreak of the Crisis in Ukraine, calls for nuclear weapons in South Korea have risen again. According to a Poll published on its official website on February 21 by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a U.S. think tank, 71 percent of South Koreans support the country's nuclear program. Strikingly, 67 percent of respondents want South Korea to have an independent nuclear arsenal.

In fact, the idea of developing nuclear weapons has existed in South Korea for a long time, especially as North Korea has become more sophisticated and sophisticated in nuclear and missile development, which has constantly stimulated south Korean nuclear advocacy, but there has not been any discussion on this at the level of South Korea's foreign and defense policies.

At the beginning of his presidency in 2017, Moon jae-in publicly stated that south Korea still opposes the introduction of nuclear weapons despite the North Korean nuclear threat. In the past five years, he has also been promoting the peace process on the Korean Peninsula with "dialogue" as the core. But South Korea's newly elected president, Yoon Seok-wook, has said he would ask the United States to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea or sign a nuclear-sharing agreement if there is a threat to North Korea's national security.

Kim Sung-pei, the former director of the Overseas Intelligence Bureau of South Korea's National Intelligence Agency, said in a South Korean media article that South Korea does not have the right to launch tactical nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons are deployed in South Korea, Seoul will become the first target of other countries in an emergency.

It is far-fetched to provoke the topic of nuclear ownership with the current situation in Ukraine, but US media reports believe that in a world running behind a nuclear shield, the US response to the Ukraine crisis may make Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries in the Middle East begin to consider the rationality of strengthening their own deterrence.

But to take a step back, would Ukraine have been able to avoid today's tragedy if it had a nuclear weapon?

The Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, a U.S.-based nonprofit, said in a March 8 article that if Ukraine retains its nuclear weapons, the country will pay a high price for the economic and security assistance and diplomatic support provided by Western countries over the years. Ukraine's abandonment of nuclear weapons for its own interests and collective security is a responsible and rational decision.

Regarding the possibility of nuclear war, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian media on March 10 that he did not think the Conflict in Ukraine would escalate into a nuclear war, but he warned the United States and Europe that Russia would never want to rely on the West again.

Responsible editor: Zhang Wuwei Photo editor: Jiang Lidong

Proofreader: Ding Xiao