Tag: NATO

How the West sacrificed Ukraine for the so-called Liberal Ideals

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the apparent issues involved, and what partly explains the cause of the Ukrainian war, is the difference in approach to international politics between Western leaders and the Russians. NATO nations and the American foreign policy elites seem to adhere, sincerely or hypocritically, to liberal ideals about the exercise of international politics. On the other hand, the elites in Moscow and Putin himself seem to hold a realist approach. The effect of this is that Moscow is more pragmatic about resolving the conflict, whereas its Western counterparts are dogmatic.

The final losers in this war will definitely be the people of Ukraine, whose myopic leaders have sacrificed their country as a battleground for big-power rivalry.

Let us begin by remembering the words of American leaders on the issue of expanding NATO eastwards.

When former US President Joe Biden was still a senator, serving on the Foreign Relations Committee in 1997, he stated that the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term, in terms of US-Russian and NATO-Russian relations, would be the admission of the Baltic states into NATO. He warned that that would tip the balance and induce a vigorous and hostile reaction from Russia. That was in 1997! It was 25 years later, in 2022, that the Ukrainian war broke out. Is it, therefore, right to describe Russia as an unprovoked aggressor?

When, at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO members proposed to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the former CIA director, William J. Burns, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow warned Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state then, that the entry of Ukraine into NATO was the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. In the secret cable he sent her, he noted that: “In my more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests … Today’s Russia will respond.”

In 2014, when consideration was made to add Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, Jack Matlock, America’s last ambassador to the Soviet Union, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He stated, “I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”

Henry Kissinger, arguably one of the greatest scholars on international relations the world will ever know, opined in The Washington Post in March 2014 that for Ukraine to survive, it should function as a bridge rather than an outpost of either NATO or Russia. He discouraged Ukraine from joining NATO.  He noted that: “Putin is a serious strategist on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology is not his strong suit. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.”

Contrary to Kissinger’s wise advice, American and European leaders have instead deployed their media to manufacture the narrative that portrays Putin as a devil, and themselves as saviours. In his own words, Kissinger humorously made a solemn aphorism that “the demonisation of Putin is not a policy, it’s an alibi for not having one.”

In one of the longest, agonising diplomatic negotiations in history, Russia appealed to NATO members not to expand eastwards. President Boris Yeltsin wrote to Bill Clinton in 1993, arguing that the expansion of NATO breached the spirit of the 1990 Two Plus Four Treaty on German reunification. Even as Yeltsin initially conceded to Poland’s campaign to join NATO at the time, he later retracted in the face of domestic pressure. It was 29 years later, in 2022, that the war in Ukraine broke out. So, how can it be reduced to the character of Putin?

In the end, Ukraine will be unable to defeat Russia without American support. Yet America is least likely to invade a nuclear-armed power, as that would spell Mutual Assured Destruction. In the face of that uphill battle, it’s Ukraine that stands to lose. Russia will bleed to the last corporal, but will never surrender to Ukraine. It would be better for the Ukrainian leadership to abandon NATO membership and seek neutrality.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: The Unintended Consequences of America’s Ukrainian Gambit

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The Ukrainian war is not only a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the U.S./NATO and Russia. Ukraine is simply the battleground. And the Ukrainian army is doing the U.S./NATO’s bidding. The U.S., having gathered lessons from wars it has lost in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, calculated that if it provoked and drew Russia into a similar war against Ukraine, Russia would invade and suffer a war of attrition. America’s contribution would be to arm, train, and do propaganda for Ukrainian fighters. That it has done.

It is highly difficult to win a war against nationalistic struggles. It is nationalism that defeated colonialism in Africa. It is also nationalism that defeated American imperialism in Vietnam and Afghanistan. America understands so well that despite Russia’s firepower, it would never easily defeat Ukraine, even if it has the means to devastate it. The protracted war would leave Russia exhausted, militarily, economically and socially.

Anyone who has studied the history of NATO-Russia and U.S.-Russia relations would understand that this conflict has little to nothing to do with Kiev. There have been decades of negotiations between Russia and NATO/U.S. over the expansion of NATO eastwards. Therefore, it is fallacious for governing elites in Kiev to believe the story told by the Western media in explaining the conflict. It is presented as a conflict stemming from Russia’s unprovoked aggression, with the Ukrainian side portrayed as fighting for its sovereignty and independence. This is a strategic misrepresentation of facts and reality. The real truth is that Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty are an excuse, not an explanation for why America and its European satellites instigated this war.

Besides the likelihood of the war spiralling into nuclear armageddon, it is the unimagined and unintended consequences which may emanate from this conflict that are most concerning.

The trajectory of wars is difficult to predict. Consider any war in history, and the results of the conflict would rarely have been foreseen. Take World War I for example, where a murder incident of a Prince led to events that, within four years, concluded the collapse of four great empires – Austria, Russia, Germany and the Ottoman empires. Therefore, the Ukrainian war could even end in the destruction of NATO and the collapse of Western global influence, especially since the war is divergently contrasted with the genocide in Gaza, which is funded by the same Western nations posturing to care about the human rights and self-determination of the Ukrainian people, while funding the slaughter of babies, women and men in Palestine.

Additionally, the Ukrainian war led to the stoppage of purchasing affordable Russian gas by European countries, leading to inflation caused by high costs of energy costs. Eventually, this is leading to economic decline and further declining living standards, which are also leading to the emergence of far-right political movements. These movements could in future totally change the political environment in Europe in ways unfathomable.

One of the major weaknesses exposed by this war is the failure of Western sanctions to de-energise Russia. These sanctions, described as “crippling” by the West, turn out to have no significant crippling effect at all. It was expected that these sanctions would push Russia’s financial system into disarray and stagnate its international trade. The West imagined Russia losing the value of the ruble and being unable to earn from its foreign exchanges. The West imagined Russia unable to pay for goods and services from abroad. This would ultimately hinder the ability of Moscow to fund the war, hence lose militarily in Ukraine.

As things have turned out, those were simply wishful imaginations.

The financial war launched against Russia has proved largely ineffective because the Western market no longer occupies a significant portion of international trade and investment. New dynamic markets have emerged in Asia and the global south, creating alternatives for international investments and trade outside of Europe and North America.

Indeed, despite the “crippling sanctions” levied against Russia, its economy continued to grow at rates higher than most European economies. It seems that Moscow had already foreseen such economic warfare coming years ahead, and started to nurture new markets and relationships in Asia as an alternative to the European market.

It has now been exposed that America and its European allies are incapable of successfully waging an economic war against their adversaries. That realisation has shifted global power dynamics. Imagine what other countries would do when they see that you sanction your enemies to destroy their economies during conflicts… they would strategically start shifting away from overreliance on the dollar as a global currency. This is what has started to happen. Several countries are now starting to trade using the Yuan in what is termed the “internationalisation of the yuan.”

Since America is occasionally fighting wars around different corners of the world, it is unlikely for other countries to assume they will always be at peace with it. With America’s shifting interests comes shifting loyalties, rendering American friendship an unreliable adventure which must be enjoyed with caution. Decoupling from the dollar is thus one of the ways to diversify risks emanating from the suspicion with which most reasonable countries engage American foreign policy. The Ukrainian war has revealed this more.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre. 

How Western Hubris Led to the Ukrainian War

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the greatest instruments for waging war are the tools of mass propaganda. The West, i.e., the USA and NATO nations, are armed to the teeth with these. They control international news and feed audiences with anti-Russian/ anti-Putin propaganda dressed as journalism. Thus, they blame the war in Ukraine entirely on Russia. They also portray President Vladimir Putin as a maniac, disgruntled with the collapse of the Soviet empire and seeking its reconstruction. Far from the truth.

A long list of Western diplomats, politicians, great academics, and men of great standing would tell you that the United States and its NATO colleagues (hereinafter the West) take the greatest responsibility/ blame for this needless war.

The main cause of the war is NATO’s expansion into Russia’s orbit. Russian leaders always warned, since the 1990s, that turning a strategic neighbour like Ukraine into a Western outpost on the doorstep of Russia would never be accepted. This is also why Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. Putin had feared, rightly so, that the peninsula would host a NATO naval base.

Any great power would push back if another power roamed into its backyard, threatening its strategic interests. The West/ USA knows this better. That’s why they wouldn’t allow Soviet missiles in Cuba.

The Western affront against Russia started in the mid-1990s when the Clinton administration began pushing for the enlargement of NATO. They began by bringing the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland into NATO in 1999. They continued in 2004 by adding Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia always complained. However, apart from the little Baltic states, none of the admitted new NATO members shared a border with Russia, so it was not threatened much.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and (former) U.S. President Joe Biden shake hands as (former) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and (former) NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg attend a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine council, in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 12, 2023.

In continuous provocation, the West dug deeper East, considering adding Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. At the time, even France and Germany stood opposed to the move, emphasising it would antagonise Russia. But the USA supported it. NATO members agreed to declare that Georgia and Ukraine “… will become members of NATO.”

In response, Russia’s deputy foreign minister at the time, Alexander Gruhko, warned that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.” A Russian newspaper at the time also reported that Putin candidly cautioned George Bush that “… if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist.”

One cannot find it difficult to comprehend that, for instance, the USA would never allow China to build a military alliance, let alone set up a military base in Canada or Mexico. It wouldn’t even allow Russia to do so 90 miles away in Cuba. Why would they consider it right and rational to form a military alliance with a nation of such strategic importance to Russia? Why would they consider setting up military bases in a country sharing a boarder with Russia?

One of the greatest scholars on USSR-USA relations was the American diplomat and historian George Frost Kennan. As early as 1998, when the West began attempts to expand NATO Eastwards, he warned in an interview that, “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to hurt the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking …I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely to it and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else… It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then (the NATO expanders) will say that ‘we always told you that is how the Russians are,’ but this is just wrong.”

The following year, in 1997, 50 American foreign policy experts, including the former Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton stating that “We, the undersigned, believe that the current US-led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons: In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favour reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanise resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included…”

I can go on and on, quoting voices of reason from the West challenging US/NATO expansion towards Russia’s orbit of influence. Why are Western leaders foolhardy about diving headfirst into what could potentially cause World War III?

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Trump’s Commercial Diplomacy is Setting the Stage for a Multipolar World

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

After the fall of the Berlin wall in November 1989, Washington along with its Western allies was clueless of what would happen next. They had developed their whole systems to rival the Soviet Union, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was no longer worried about the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB), almost overnight the Gosbank State Bank of the USSR and Comecon were gone and the IMF had no opponent, the just ended U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) had a free reign because the Vneshconombank and Soviet Committee for Solidarity with Asia and Africa were no longer in place to further soviet foreign aid programs. For the last three decades, America/West has had no motivation to direct its global influence.

NATO without the opposition of the Warsaw Pact went to a senseless expansion that led to a hot war with Russia in 2014 with Ukraine being the battleground; the security organization accompanied Washington to Iraq and Afghanistan in military campaigns that cost about $ 8 trillion including long term veteran care, interest on the loans and the reconstruction pledges, funding that could have built 6 China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As the United States is leaving Afghanistan and Iraq one thing is clear: all those dollars bills were for nothing because they lost both the wars from a tactical and strategic point because all they did was to lead to deaths of millions of people.

How the west has behaved in the last three decades has only hastened its decline, and diminished Washington’s global influence as Nnando Kizito Sseruwagi a senior research fellow at Development Watch Centre put it in his “A better deal: Why Africa is turning to China for development” pointing out how empires that have tried to dominate the world have all ended up falling. The reality is that as Americas’ decline happens there is a gap being created, a gap to reshape the world order.

The undertakings of Trump 2.o are all being a catalyst to the decline of the west, he has officially decided to put an end to USAID after its 6 decades throwing away what looks like Washington’s biggest soft power tool. It’s becoming more and more evident that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) will not survive as commercial diplomacy is being President Trump’s path of international relations. Washington through its America first policy is rolling out Tariffs even towards its long standing allies like Canada, a member of NATO and G7 an indicator that AGOA is in its last days.

President Trump has always been unconventional and in his first term in office he went ahead to meet the North Korea leader for talks that never materialized into anything, he also negotiated the withdrawal of the American and NATO troops from Afghanistan and handed the country back to the Taliban an event that showcased America’s weakest point. Lately Israeli news outlets broke the news that Trump was in direct talks with Hamas, an organization that Washington officially considers as terrorists. In his many unconventional approaches to diplomacy he has sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader regarding a deal on Iran’s nuclear program after he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that had seen Iran only use its nuclear program for peaceful purposes at the same time opening up the country to the world. Everyone knows the Iranians can never negotiate from a position of disrespect as though they are selling their country in a real estate deal. During his campaign to return to the white house Mr. Trump on the Joe Logan Podcast said America got nothing from protecting Taiwan, he linked the whole situation on how the Mafia offer’s its security, his commercial diplomacy then took the Mafia diplomacy outlook. It’s the approach he has taken to the Ukraine situation, after the shouting match in the oval office with the Ukraine president, Washington froze it’s military support to Kiev and further went ahead to stop any intelligence sharing with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government until a deal promising $ 500 billion rear earth minerals to USA is signed. He is basically setting NATO to Auto pilot and the European Union knows it has to step up on its security. On security the African version of NATO AFRICOM survived being axed during Trump 1.0 but with developments coming from White house the writing is on the wall according to a scenario plan report by a French think tank Institut Monteigne.

In October of 2020 China’s President introduced the saying “the East is rising and the West is declining” words that resonated with the global south because of what is unfolding, currently BRICS is giving the G7 a run for its money, when it comes to demographics that define markets and labor force and on a bad day fighting force in terms of war. The manufacturing capital of the world is in the east, South East Asia are taking up their place on the global stage and they are influencing organizations like the G20. Beijing has put in place its Global Security Initiative (GSI), Alan Collins Mpewo a senior research fellow at Development Watch Centre outlines how the GSI can fill the security void in places like Africa in his piece titled “D.R Congo Problems: Time to try China’s Global Security Initiative?” a piece that can mirror the situation in both the Sudans, for Beijing it has also been its official approach to the war in Europe and it’s the framework that was used to restore diplomatic channels between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

China is better placed to fill up the gap left by the west but being on top of the world doesn’t mean it will necessarily run and police the world since it has invested in the global south through FOCAC and Belt and Road Initiative to have equally developed partners not allies to reshape the future of the planet, through multilateralism in a multipolar setting that respects all cultures and civilizations.

The writer is a research fellow at The Development Watch Centre.

 

Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks: Neutral Parties Needed to Leverage Negotiations.

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

Today marks the 6th day since Russian forces invaded Ukraine in what Russian President Vladimir Putin described as a “military action” aimed at protecting Moscow supporters from a supposedly “genocidal” regime.

The war has already claimed over 200 lives, and forced tens of thousands to flee their homes to neighbouring countries and destruction of properties is on-going. From the look of things, the war is not about to end and Russia seems determined as it advances toward Kiev.

In same way, Western countries are increasing pressure against Moscow with different western Capitals slapping sanctions against Russia. While sanctions may have an impact against Russia in the long run, drawing examples from North Korea, Iran among others countries the West has sanctioned, it is clear that sanctions hardly bring about desired changes and sometimes they severe already poor relations among countries. In this case, dialogue and negotiations remain the best option in addressing challenges among countries.

Indeed, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy after repeatedly expressed willingness to enter dialogue with Russia and addressing president Putin via a recorded video message: “I would like to address the President of the Russian Federation once again. Fighting is going on all over Ukraine. Let’s sit down at the negotiating table to stop the deaths of people,” talks finally started at the Ukraine-Belarus border where both sides agreed to resume them after consultations from their capitals.

Despite Ukrainian president saying he does not expect much from these negotiations, the fact that the  two sides met is a good sign and should be encouraged. Nonmatter how cliché it may sound, talking with each other is better than talking at each other. However, it is evident that unless the two sides and Ukraine’s backers are not ready to compromise, these negations may stale prolonging the war and suffering of people in Ukraine.

To safeguard these talks, a neutral country which has not shown side and with a good record as far as observing international laws such as respecting territorial boundaries of sovereign countries is concerned is a better option and has moral authority to facilitate such negotiations. A neutral guarantor is key for success of negotiations to move well. China among all major powers, only China qualifies. This does not mean other major powers cannot help, but considering that many especially the US and EU have shown sides, they can only watch and perhaps encourage the them than acting as spoilers or continuing with statements that may escalate the situation.

On the other side, China has not shown side and has been calling for diplomacy as the best way of resolving this crisis. Indeed, China’s State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has been categorical explaining in five points China’s stand in regard to the Ukraine question maintaining that: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected and protected and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter abided by in real earnest; stressed that security of one country should not come at the expense of the security of other countries; encouraged all parties to exercise the necessary restraint; expressed support for all diplomatic efforts conducive to a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis; encouraged direct dialogue and negotiation between Russia and Ukraine,  and stressed its belief that UN Security Council should play a constructive role in resolving the Ukraine issue, stressing that “actions taken by the Security Council should help cool the situation and facilitate diplomatic resolution rather than fueling tensions and causing further escalation.”

Even in UNSC emergency session, while the West voted and campaigned for the resolution to condemn Russia, China used that chance and argued concerned parties to consider dialogue and abstained. If critically analysed, this alone is a score that Beijing is neutral on this issue and if given opportunity, Beijing can help to have the two worrying sides resolve their disagreements peacefully and silence guns in Ukraine.

From historical perspective, China’s intention to ensure a peaceful world where countries observe and respect international laws is solid. Beijing has been very consistent with a view of maintaining global security and saving people from suffering due to wars. For example, after France, US and NATO allies invaded Libya in 2011 arguing they wanted to protect civilians from government forces under UN resolution 1674 – Responsibility to protect, after allegations that NATO forces were involved in operations that left civilians injured and others dead, Brazil and China came up with a proposal to ensure protection of civilians and introduced the idea of Responsibility While Protecting (RwP). Because at this time France and NATO allies were the invading forces, they refused to support RwP. China proposed some changes and named a new draft Responsible Protection (RP) which was again rejected by France, US and UK and hence, left plight of civilians during invasion at the mercies of invading forces with little or no hope of ever getting justice.

While some western pundits have claimed that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gives China a chance to invade and occupy Taiwan, it is important to note that Ukraine Question is very different from Taiwan. While Ukraine is a sovereign country with its territories protected international laws, Taiwan is China’s territory that suggesting China will invade it is like saying China will invade herself. For Taiwan’s case, it can only be unification but not invasion.

Again, as Chinese Foreign Minister observed, when it comes to peace and security, China has the best record among major powers. It has never invaded other countries or engaged in proxy wars, nor have they ever sought spheres of influence or participated in military bloc confrontations.

On top of opposing power politics, and hegemonies, China has always campaigned that great powers respect and uphold legitimate rights and interests of developing countries-be small or medium-sized. Beijing argues this is the sure way together we can achieve a peaceful development and building of a community with a shared future for mankind where small, big, weak and powerful countries all live in harmony.

The writer is the Executive Director of Development Watch Centre; a foreign policy think tank and author of Global Governance and Norm Contestation: How BRICS is Reshaping World Order.  Twitter @AllawiSsemanda