Before delving into the issues surrounding these crises, I would like to calm the nerves of people who panic about the imminence of World War III. The recent events surely add to the history of wars – whether justified or not – they would certainly reshape the world into a new order but could never lead to world war. However, it would be sensible to understand the battle before allocating blame and joining any crowd. Different reasons come into play when making such a judgement. First is our sheer love for one of the parties involved, and the second is our hatred for the other party. Whichever party we select; our choice might be either from group feelings or the economic benefits we derive or expect to derive. And in some cases, our anger might be a result of transferred aggression. Therefore, to understand the Russian–Ukrainian conflict, we need to remove our love and hatred for the West or East and analyse the facts objectively.
Ukraine, a country with a long history of association with Russia, had a referendum that led to the emergence of the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk, as the first president of Ukraine through an election in December 1991. The issue was resolved amicably as the USSR began to dissolve, and the former Soviet countries agreed to form the Commonwealth of Independent States. The new nation started under the influence of Russia, with oligarchs, clans, and groups obstructing its democracy –engrossed in widespread corruption. In 2004, the election of Viktor Yanukovych – a Russian loyalist – was annulled by the Supreme Court on account of election fraud, after a widespread protest called the Orange Revolution. These brought Victor Yushchenko, who was the choice of the West, into power against the aspirations of Russia. In 2010, Yanukovych, the Russian puppet, came into power and began negotiation with the European Union to improve the country’s economic situation. The economic tie requires a certain level of transparency and sanity in the regime, which is expected to get rid of the corrupt oligarchs in the system. Russia perceived the agreement as a case of meddling into Eastern Europe’s affairs, which could put Russia at risk. Therefore, in light of Russian influence, the government rejected the terms and conditions presented to the country. Another wave of protest erupted, which pressured the president to flee the country to Russia in February 2014. Russia was so convinced that the West stage-managed the protest in their bid to bring Ukraine into their fold. Russia moved in to annex Crimea in 2014, which they claimed was part of Russia before it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954. As events unfold, Ukraine’s effort to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was vehemently resisted by Russia. These landmark events gave a different dimension to the whole crisis because Russia felt threatened by those powers around its borders – as Napoleon summarized it, “He who fears being conquered is sure to defeat.”
Looking at history, we can understand the wars fought by the West and the political undertone surrounding them. From the ascension of Mr Putin to power in 1999, he waged war against Chechnya after the March 1999 bombing that claimed the lives of 293 people in Russia, allegedly masterminded by Chechen rebels. This increased Putin’s popularity rating in Russia from 2% to 35%. The Georgian war followed and displaced about 192,000 people. In the same vein, within the span of 15 years, the West, led by America from their end, also staged wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, which violently claimed about 1,020,166 lives. The battle in Afghanistan was fought on the pretext that Taliban refused to surrender Osama Bin Laden for his active role in September 11 attack. The battle was fought for 20 years, in which the U.S. lost about 2,401 soldiers and $2.313 trillion of its taxpayers’ money. After years of losses, the U.S. had no option but to withdraw its troops and allowed the regime to fall back into the hands of the Taliban after a series of talks with the U.S representatives in Qatar. The second war that changed the Middle East was that of Iraq. The war started in 2003 to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), against the wishes of the then-United Nations Secretary-General, who later called it “an illegal war”. The U.S. allies in the battle included the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, and Poland. Meanwhile, the WMDs that were the motivation for the attack were not found, but the country (Iraq) turned out to be an incubating ground for more terrorists (ISIL), that the entire world has to subsequently battle. The war created a power vacuum that allowed the region to be infested with ISIL and Al-Qaeda terrorists forming a caliphate within a short period. Meanwhile, to George Bush and Tony Blair, the war was justified because of their good intention – and no one is pointing fingers.
Conversely, from the African perspective, the war in Libya was not justified as it also compromised our security and hampered our economy. Libya, an oil-rich country, was attacked by the West, with France at the forefront purposely to remove a tyrant leader, as they claimed. This war also created a power vacuum and a menace to all West African countries. Libyan weapons found their way into the hands of terrorist groups like AQIL in Mali and Boko Haram in Nigeria – a menace bedeviling the entire region. On the other hand, among the promises of President Trump was to withdraw American forces from Iraq, which he fulfilled, thus bringing Iran’s influence closer to Israel. Arab Spring in Syria, which was purported to have been instigated by the West to bring democracy, also ended badly. Bashar al-Assad was tagged as a dictator after the protest in Syria turned out to be violent. To save the Syrian people, the U.S. intervened to topple Assad – an ardent enemy of Israel – for their expansionist agenda. The West supplied weapons through their proxies to free Syrian armies, which stealthily ended up in the hands of ISIL. The areas abandoned by Syrian troops due to the sustained battle were taken and shared between ISIL and free Syrian armies. Despite the perceived risk, the West continued to supply weapons to topple Assad, inadvertently replenishing the stock of ISIL. After the two regimes (Iraq and Syria) were weakened, ISIL expanded its territory to 52,700 KM2 in 2017. Russia being a close ally to Syria decided to intervene boldly with the latest air defence missiles, logistics, and aerial support. The presence of Russia and Iran brought a dramatic change to the situation on the ground by defeating ISIL and returning the lost territories to Iraqi and Syrian regimes.
It is important to note that all these justified and unjustified invasions happened in the eyes of Putin. While Mr. Putin was learning from these invasions, he took advantage of the trust they had on him and build strategic alliances across the world. He also used the opportunity to develop and improve his military hardware to match the world powers. In the same vein, he managed to access the G8 and established trade agreements with many countries. Over this time, Russian companies were listed on the U.K. stock exchange, opening their doors to financial hubs worldwide. In 2005 alone, Russian firms earned more than $4 billion in share sales in the British capital. Contrary to these firms’ prior value, which was put at $1.4 billion. In Swiss Banks alone, Russian companies and individuals’ assets stood at $11 billion in 2020. By the end of 2021, foreign holdings of Russian equities were valued at $86 billion. Russia produced about $5 million barrels of crude oil, of which more than half goes to the West, while Russian gas accounts for about 40% of the European Union’s natural gas import. With sanctions like suspension from the international payment platform (Swift), freezing of assets, and banning Russian oil from the global market, Russia would have no option but to retaliate by turning off Europe’s gas supply and devising the means to transact internationally via cryptocurrency and other unconventional means detrimental to the world economy.
President Putin status as a former KBG agent who rose to the rank of secretary of the security council under Boris Yeltsin’s regime gave him an edge over his Western counterparts. He knows where to channel resources, using intelligence to penetrate the West’s economy. For instance, the investigation conducted by the FBI into the alleged cyberattack on the Clinton campaign pointed at Russia. Thus, Modern Russia is a phenomenon that comes to stand, which the U.S. and the rest of the West have no option but to live with it. Another great advantage to Russia is China’s view and belief about Taiwan and Hong Kong. This hidden intention is not far-fetched from china’s reluctance to join the campaign against Russia. Nonetheless, the gap created by sanctions on Russian oil also necessitates some extreme stances and a bitter pill to swallow. First of all, the U.S. has to consider relaxing sanctions against Venezuela and Iran – who are close allies to Russia. On the other hand, Israel — the closest ally to the U.S. and significant determinant of its Middle East policies — will frown at such a stance. The second option is to beef up the Saudi oil supply, which is a more traditional stance but could be exposed to Yemen Houthis’ attacks. In a nutshell, the gap created by these sanctions could not be remedied sooner and would undoubtedly become a disaster to the world.
Conclusively, the Western powers understand the magnitude of what the U.S. dragged them into, all in the name of the NATO alliance. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done — the only option is to work towards de-escalation, which is difficult with the surrounding vested interest. The anxiety for most neighbouring countries is that, victory over Ukraine could be an incentive for more rounds of Russian invasions. This is nothing but mere exaggeration, as Russia had made it intention clear from day one. To walk us through this crisis in simple terms, just like the U.S. and China, Russia would never allow hostile nations to have a base near its borders. Drawing an analogy from Israel; Tel Aviv would never be comfortable with Iran’s long-range missiles program because Iran is a neighbour to Syria, which shares a border with it. In the same vein, Russia would risk all it has to protect its borders against any hostility, as it is better barefoot than none to Putin. Russia would be better off without NATO at its doorstep than with billions of dollars in foreign reserve. In a nutshell, the U.S. is not interested in a direct confrontation with Russia but is rejoicing with the rounds of sanctions matted on Russia. The more isolated Russia becomes in this crisis the more influence the U.S. will garner over the European blocks. France and Germany would prefer peace and prosperity to reign because of their proximity with Russia. In contrast, the U.K. might not give a damn due to its geographical location, which puts it at an advantage when the chips are down. With the juicy assets seized from Russian oligarchs, the U.K. would prefer escalation for some time — to derive as much benefit as possible in the crisis and get over the economic bites from COVID-19.
Ahmad, PhD writes from Abuja
