By Segun Ige

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defence against a homicidal maniac – George Orwell

PERHAPS the most powerful weapon of war is propaganda. I take propaganda to mean the thought-control mechanism a state deploys in creating necessary illusions and emotionally potent simplifications, which are necessary in putting the public in its proper, systemic-functional, socio-political space.

Now, when it comes to matters of war, there appears to be no moral justification or criteria for which to underpin whether or not a state has committed an unpardonable crime in invading a neighbouring state.

The bottom-line, it seems to me, is self-interest, and self-interest by and large covers multitude of sins. And self-defence, precipitated by self-interest, propels each state wired in the war to transgress historically, ethnically and politically binding agreements whatsoever they could have had in the mire.

Ukraine as the bread basket of Europe feels its autonomy threatened by Russia’s autocracy since the seizure of Crimea in 2014. In order to liberate itself from the imperial posture and propensity of Russia, Ukraine under Volodymyr Zelenskyy decided to go pro-West, in fact wanting to be an ally of NATO and the EU.

Noting the consequences, Russia’s Vladimir Putin through “special military operation” deploys a “de-nazification” measure in dealing with Ukraine.

Since the Cold War, America has been a Russian enemy, and for Ukraine to be heading for NATO or the EU means bringing Russia’s closest enemy into its border. This will definitely pose a great deal of threat and pressure on Russia.

Afraid that being a flat country – because it’s prone to invasion by super-power countries – Russia could not but begin to militarily fortify its friendship with its SU-ally, Belarus. Belarus then tactically and tacitly became a hotspot to circumnavigate the Russian rockets and missiles across Ukraine. With Ukraine being pro-West, Putin becomes the more belligerently haunted by Hitlerism, or stung by Stalinism.

The US, its allies and partners were by and large presumptuous and contemptuous about the “minor incursion” of Russia on the Ukraine border. They all took it for granted, of course, and as such their words were louder than their actions in the first place, thereby putting the cart before the horse.

For fear they are going to be on the receiving end of Russia’s gas and oil, a considerable percentage of the West were propagandistically counting the costs of imposing any sort of sanctions on Russia that would devastatingly result in dire economic reverberations in their economic rapprochements.

Little wonder, then, whether or not Russia is waging war against Ukraine, against the US, or against the West. As of February 19, at the Munich Security Conference, Germany – and this was in fact five days into the “Russian invasion” of Ukraine – US’s Vice President Kamala Harris gave a particularly pragmatist and perspicacious remark. She says: “Today, as we are all aware, the foundation of European security is under direct threat in Ukraine”.

Here, of course, I’m mandatorily made to believe that the EU, or NATO, or even the US, is directly or indirectly contesting for this breadbasket called “Ukraine”.

The fact that “European security” is “under direct threat in Ukraine” because of the “minor incursion” of Russian troops reveals in one way or another that Russia’s “maintenance-of-membership” war-waging would surely have colossal devastating repercussions in the US, and as such the US does need Ukraine for its own economic, if not militaristic, sustainability.

Another crucial, even more pertinent, observation in Ms. Harris’s remark: “I can say with all certainty: If Russia further invades Ukraine, the United States, together with our Allies and partners, will impose significant and unprecedented economic costs. “We have prepared, together, economic measures that will be swift, severe and united. We will impose far-reaching financial sanctions and export controls. We will target Russia’s financial institutions and key industries. We will target those who aid and abet this unprovoked invasion”.

The bottom-line, I believe, is that while President Biden was ‘by faith’ talking about “minor incursion”, Vice President Harris was ‘by sight’ talking about “invasion”. Each of them seems to me to have a different mental attitude towards the Russian seizure of Ukraine borders, which ultimately resulted in the taken-for-granted Russia-Belarus ‘accumulation-through-dispossession’ bombardment (de)militarisation of Ukraine.    

Let’s face it squarely: the West, having the US at its beck and call, lost focus and decisiveness, that is, whether or not to deal with Russia or rather back Ukraine with ammunition and artilleries.

 Knowing full well that Mr. Putin’s “actions do not match his words”, Ms. Harris should have zeroed in on her gut feeling of Russia’s invasion, in that case by compelling and carrying the West along with her vision and foresight. If the US had thrown enough mud, some in fact would have stuck to the wall, thereby preventing the all-intents-and-purposes Cold War II.  Putin, it appears to me, is not backing down so long as Zelenskyy is bent on being an ally of either of the EU or NATO. Russia needs Ukraine for survival. Even Europe itself needs Ukraine for survival.

For one if Putin reduces pressure on Ukraine, Russia is going to be paralysed militarily, economically and geographically simply because – for obvious reasons – Ukraine is the epicentre of Russia SU’s bureaucratic economic collectivisation and anarcho-bourgeois dictatorship. For another, the West, which depends on Russia for gas and oil, actually indirectly relies on Ukraine.  

Ige, a freelance journalist and public affairs commentator, wrote from Lagos via: [email protected]