Western Double Standards Towards Donbass Were The Beginning Of The End For Its Hegemony

While Crimea swiftly reunified with Russia in a democratic referendum, the Donets Basin (Donbass) region of Eastern Ukraine had to fight for its independence after Kiev ordered its people to be bombed. They’re majority Russian and had never historically been part of what’s now known as Ukraine, only coming under its administrative jurisdiction during the Soviet era due to arbitrary ideological reasons. These people rightly feared for their lives and freedoms, hence their rebellion, which led to a ceasefire.

That in turn evolved into the Minsk Accords, of which two were agreed, but they were never implemented by Kiev. It was since admitted by the former French and German leaders, two of the co-signers alongside Russia and Ukraine, that the West never had any intention of going through with it. Instead, they wanted to simply buy time for Ukraine to rearm ahead of a final offensive for forcing that rebellious region back under Kiev’s control, after which they’d then become second-class citizens.

The eight years between “EuroMaidan” and Russia’s special operation were characterized by numerous ceasefire violations from the Ukrainian side, but these were either ignored by the West or dishonestly spun as “responses to Russian provocations”. In hindsight, Ukraine was testing the locals’ defense capabilities at its Western patrons’ behest in order to learn more about their vulnerabilities, which could then help perfect their plan to reconquer the region.

It was during this time that Western double standards towards Donbass first began to be displayed. Civilians were being terrorized, maimed, and even killed, all while living under a blockade by the Ukrainian side, yet not a peep was made about their plight by “human rights” NGOs. They were treated as subhumans without the same rights as others purely because of their Russian identity. Geopolitical interests drove this approach since the conflict has always been part of a larger proxy war on Russia.

Even though Russia gradually began to understand these dynamics, President Putin still kept the bigger picture in mind of trying to peacefully resolve this conflict in line with the Minsk Accords so as to revive his plans for turning Russia into a bridge between China and the EU through Ukraine. This was a noble vision that would have benefited everyone had it been allowed to be implemented. It made perfect sense for all parties to reconcile per the terms established by Minsk and focus on economic cooperation.

As a rational leader, he assumed that his European counterparts and particularly those in Germany whose country he’s always had a fondness for would understand and work with him towards this end, but what he didn’t realize till later was that Germany wasn’t the sovereign country that he thought. Rather, it had turned into an American proxy and was willing to sacrifice its objective national interests for the sake of its patron’s, thus explaining why it never did anything to implement the Minsk Accords.

The awareness of this sheds light on another double standard, namely that the German-led EU always talks about “protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty” while neither of them actually has any sovereignty anymore in any meaningful sense. While some of their representatives might truly believe the rhetoric that they spew, it’s only because they have a twisted US-influenced interpretation of what this means, which isn’t what President Putin or his advisors ever had in mind or thought that they meant.

This disconnect continued up until late 2021 when the Russian leader finally realized that something foul was afoot, ergo why he had his government shared several security proposals with the US and NATO for revolutionizing the European security architecture in order to resolve their growing security dilemma. These were flat-out rejected, which signaled to him that his worst fears were true: Ukraine was being used by the US-led West, including the German-led EU, as a proxy for waging war against Russia.

Recognizing that his country’s security situation will only worsen with time if this trend continues unabated and feeling compelled to defend Donbass’ residents from what he was informed by his intelligence services was an imminent full-scale Ukrainian offensive, he decided to act first. The concept that he employed is known as “preemptive warfare”, which ironically formed the basis of the US’ Wolfowitz Doctrine after the Old Cold War, albeit abused by America but properly applied by Russia.

That’s yet another double standard since Putin was only acting in defense of Donbass and Russia, and using limited means at that which continue to this day instead of launching an all-out official war along the lines of the US’ infamous “shock and awe” model. Although every precaution has been taken to reduce civilian casualties and inconveniences, the West hypocritically accused Russia of “genocide”, all while refusing to characterize Israel’s killing of several times as many Palestinians in the same way.

Israel is a Western ally while Russia is a geopolitical rival so the same standard doesn’t apply to them from its perspective. Even so, it’s still important to draw attention to this and other inconsistencies since the multipolar processes that were accelerated by the special operation have also sped up the decline of American soft power, with each hypocrisy further exposing the self-interested motives behind its policies. The cumulative effect is that hearts and minds are being won by Russia and lost by the West.

There’s no telling at this point when the special operation will end, but what can be known for sure is that more examples of Western double standards will continue piling in, with the few mentioned in this analysis being only the tip of the iceberg and among the most prominent. Many more exist sine this piece wasn’t meant to be comprehensive, only to remind everyone of something that they might have already taken for granted after all that’s happened thus far.

In terms of the bigger picture, the West’s hypocrisy towards Donbass can be seen in hindsight as the beginning of the end for unipolarity and its dominance over the global discourse. Had the West engaged with Russia in good faith and reciprocated Putin’s olive branches, it could have maintained more of its hegemony than it presently has but in much more peaceful conditions for everyone. To be sure, it was still on the decline anyhow, but the pace thereof has hastened as a result of all that’s since unfolded.