A Failure in Decision-Making Under Crisis: The Failure in Decision-Making of President of Ukraine, Zelenskyy before the Russian Invasion
https://www.rozen-bakher.com/timeline-risks/05/03/2022/0525
Published Date: 05 March 2022
Risks Timeline by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Comments on Contemporary Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Risks Timeline by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/timeline-risks-all
Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Researcher in International Relations with a Focus on Security, Political and Economic Risks for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and International Trade
05 March at 05:25. A Failure in Decision-Making under Crisis. When I see the devastation in Ukraine that will take many years to rehabilitate, I have no doubt that the trigger for this war could be avoided by the president of Ukraine. When we are making decisions, we should take into account the risks of the reward. Ukraine is near Moscow, so any threat against Moscow raises a harsh response from Russia. The huge deployment of the Russian army (100-150K) near the Ukraine border over many months leaves no doubt how seriously Russia sees the change in the status quo by Ukraine. Thus, at that point, Ukraine had two options: i) To comfort Russia with the possibility of joining NATO at some point in the future, yet with the clear risk that the country will be invaded by Russia, which will lead to unprecedented devastation of Ukraine, many casualties and mass refugees. ii) To avoid conflict with Russia because Russia has a stronger army than Ukraine has in order to prevent the devastation of Ukraine. Importantly, Ukraine does not belong to NATO, so Ukraine should anticipate that NATO won’t interfere in the war, so it was clear that Ukraine is doomed to fall into the hands of Russia and that Ukraine will lose its status as an independent country, partly or fully. All those facts were clear before the invasion, so why did the president of Ukraine decide to take the clear risk of the devastation of Ukraine? The answer is simple: an illusion in decision-making. Wrongly, the president of Ukraine has hoped that NATO will join the war to protect Ukraine. He has also hoped that it will lead to fast membership of Ukraine in NATO and the EU. However, he should anticipate that it won’t happen because the EU is unlikely to agree to get into a regional war or even WWIII with Russia for the sake of Ukraine. The horror of WWII is still in the memory of Europe. Nevertheless, he should also take into account the real benefit of joining NATO. How many wars has NATO been involved during the last 75 years since its establishment to protect one of its members? Zero wars. Why did Finland and Sweden not join NATO yet? Sometimes, apparently, neutrality is better than confrontation. He should also take into account that some NATO members were opposed to the bid of Ukraine to join NATO in the past. Considering that, if the president of Ukraine had simply declared before the invasion that he had no intention to join NATO, then he would have avoided the devastation of Ukraine. Besides, how many times were leaders and countries committed to agreements yet withdrew from them after that? Countless times, so for the sake of Ukraine, it was better even if the president of Ukraine chose the ‘temporary obligation path’ of not joining NATO over the clear real option of the devastation of Ukraine.
