Understanding The War In Ukraine: Looking Beyond The Surface (Part Two)

 

By Dr. Sylvester Arrey (st.arrey@yahoo.com)

Sylvester is a Lecturer in the Department of International Relations and Conflict Resolution, University of Buea, Cameroon)

This is PART TWO of a two-part article written to shed light on the war in Ukraine. Endeavour to access and go through PART ONE also published on this platform before continuing with this.

From its manifestations to the content of the narratives of each belligerent, the Russia-Ukraine War will remain complex and confusing to many if, instead of going for sieved contents and trusted wartime sources of information, they stick only on popular news and officially presented versions of things. It is worth stating that the first casualty of war, especially a war with high stakes, is not human beings but truth. Whoever doesn't know how to twist, juggle or play with truth should go for a different vocation, not anything connected to war, because truth is a feared adversary in a war setting. Its free circulation is a problem, making it to be guarded with much seriousness like the dangerous foe it is considered to be.

Killing any living thing, especially a human being, and destroying everything about them is not easy at all even when one is a professional terminator. It requires not just courage but sufficient conviction. Therefore, whatever depletes support for the cause of war or deflates the morale of fighters and citizens is swiftly taken away before it spreads and wreaks havoc on the overall mission. That's why wartime Secretaries of Communication or Ministers of Communication, as the case may be in different countries, are usually bold and fearless speakers who master the art of playing with words and can deliberately omit or inflate things without being moved. They usually possess the skill of tampering with stories and remaining calm and relaxed as though nothing happened. 

This is partly because once declared, war needs a reasonable degree of obscurity and distortions to thrive and meet its purpose. It is robustly resisted by light and truth. Where these two abound, they make it suffer setbacks, especially in a scenario where people have unrestricted access to the exact details of occurrences and also know the real reasons for specific actions. Therefore, for war to be war and continue till the declaration of victory, it must ignore many aspects of goodness and morality and be sustained only by what upholds the position of the parties and defends killing or justifies the destruction of both nature and the laboriously erected constructions of humans.

For parties to advance with certain objectives and foster their agenda, truth is sacrificed once war starts. It is gunned out of the way at the first pull of the trigger to permit what is intended to be done, not what is widely considered proper to do, to be eventually done. This implies that anyone relying completely on warring parties, their media or sympathisers for truth during wartime just missed the point. It's a serious error. Such may never get more than a meagre percentage of what really matters to make the issue known and wholly understood. This doesn't mean a warring party, newscaster or television house doesn't tell the truth during war. They do as much as necessary. But wartime journalism or reporting is completely different from that of peacetime. Truth gets redefined to suit the drive of the concerned. It is made to align with what they seek to achieve. As such, priority is given to their perspective and interests such that what the public is told is usually what attracts sympathy and support for the cause, not necessarily the exactness of what happened.

Many Russian media, for instance, do not refer to what is going on in Ukraine as a war. They call it a "Special Military Operation." That's how President Putin himself refers to it. The media uphold and promote the view that Russia will not fight a war with a lad which emanated from its own loins and was nurtured by it to attain its current level of adulthood. To many of them, Russia is not for war but is ready for it and will, without hesitation, fully take on anyone who crosses its red line. Such will be shown what war with Russia really is.

On the other hand, media houses in the countries commonly referred to as "the West" call what is happening in Ukraine "A War." That is how their leaders, including President Biden and Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, call it. To convey their message properly, some call it the "Russia-Ukraine War," others call it "Russia's War on Ukraine," while others call it "Putin's War on Ukraine" to highlight their position that it is not only a war, but a war in which Putin is the aggressor and Ukraine, the victim.

Worthy of note is the fact that the media is an important battlefield in contemporary warfare. It is hard to lose there and win in the trenches and open fields nowadays. As a matter of fact, any belligerent whose Media Troops are not doing well will go through tough times. Once its assigned media warriors fail to contain the onslaught of the adversary and superimpose its desire on that of its enemy, the rest of its troops will struggle in their different combat fields no matter their sophistication and experience. This is because technology has converted information to an effective weapon which can even be lethal at times. It can eliminate adversaries and shift the trajectory of wars as well as the conduct of battles in a very short time. This is responsible for why actors spend staggering sums on the media and things related to information and data management during crucial moments. The goal is to swing the pendulum to their advantage and enable them have the last laugh. Even the most effective and invincible of giants becomes vulnerable and susceptible to defeat when the people they're fighting for withdraw their support and desert them because of an information the adversary put together to serve that purpose. 

Concerning the issue of the rightful appellation of what is happening in Ukraine, it is worth highlighting that one doesn't even need to be an expert of anything to notice that what is going on there is a war. It is a full-blown war which bears the features of what the discipline of International Relations, especially the budding subfield of Peace and Conflict Studies, recognises as war. It has all the highlighted characteristics of a regular war. Contradicting this or hesitating to admit it is deliberate denial.

The academia is driven by verifiable scientific proofs presented in total neutrality and impartiality for the promotion of society. It leans on no side and no one but itself, never compromising its integrity and honesty. That is why this article will not be shy to call things by their name and unveil cloaked ones whenever necessary to bring clarity to things even when that is not what one or all of the parties desire at this crucial stage.

But where are we now and what is likely to happen soon? In other words, what's the future of this matter and of the world itself? What are the behaviours to expect from actors at this stage?  I'll peep into things and attempt an answer. This will take into account both overt and covert realities of this Ukrainian affair, analysing them in the context of International Relations and the behaviour of states. Kindly exercise more patience and accompany me down the remaining paragraphs, please.

In a war scenario, predictions of the future should never be made based on the declarations and utterances of the parties involved. Much of what they say will wholly mislead anyone trying to master their moves or know the exactness of their next action. It is a deliberate strategic behaviour which benefits them. Predictions should instead be made by studying their true reason(s) for fighting, what they don't like about their enemy, the specific things they stand to achieve from the risks they take and the outsiders they consider useful or dangerous at that particular time.

As things stand, Russia has already pulled up its sleeves and is ready to exchange blows with anyone who jumps into the ring to directly support Ukraine. It is fully aware of the indirect support flowing in. That is the maximum it can tolerate for now. It wishes to see things gravitate towards peace but is ready for a future of massive killings and shocking destruction if that must happen. Moscow knows it is already in the bad book of "the West" and can come in direct conflict with it at any time. As such, it is not trying to be nice but is rather positioning itself to strike back if stroke.

Western countries also want peace but are disappointed with Russia. Though they believe its action is wrong and unjustifiable, they're unwilling to offer direct support to Ukraine or face Russia. Their policymakers and decision makers are aware of the risks in this option. Whatever will hasten or ignite a war between the two sides is avoided at this stage not because of fear but because there is always a better time to do anything. That's why even Ukraine's recurrent and desperate call for them to declare a No Fly Zone over the airspace Russia is using to bombard it has been grossly ignored. The leaders understand that putting in place a No Fly Zone will be like giving Russia an ultimatum. It will violate it with anger without thinking twice. This will necessitate a firm response from them in order not to appear weak in the eyes of the world. It will then trigger a war that will engulf the whole of Europe and spread to other places of the world. The EU doesn't want any widespread war on the European continent now.

It should be noted that Russia sees its intervention in Ukraine and the fight it will embark on with anyone who puts their nose into the matter as the right thing it must do to survive. To the Kremlin, whatever is happening now is the price it must pay to continue existing. So this is a fateful season when it is caught between hard choices it must boldly make and not shy from for fear of criticisms. As a result of its experiences in the past with the NAZIs and the Americans, it has concluded that whenever it tries to be nice and avoid war, war instead comes. As such, it is not afraid to start one whenever it thinks there are sufficient reasons to do so. As threats have continuously crept to its direction for years from the US-led NATO and it has warned against NATO's activities without success, it feels it will not take long anymore for it to find itself in the oesophagus of this group of "Unfriendly Countries" except it takes its destiny into its own hands now. Time matters a lot in the affair. It considers these countries as dangerous and merciless enemies that strike with no pity when they have the chance because one of their core foreign policy objectives is the fortification of their hegemony on the rest of the world. This requires the elimination or severe weakening of rivals and anyone considered powerful in order for them never to be able to constitute an obstacle. According to Putin, they have been using different mild and subtle techniques to draw closer and are indeed really close and properly positioned now. It is hard to convince him to trust the US and let it advance further. Russia sees the US an an untrustworthy state whose predatory excellence it knows of too well and needs no one to give it any lecture on. The Kremlin thinks it has seen this country's real attitude displayed on many around the world who became victims because they trusted its nice words and deceptive goodness and went ahead to confidently share a bed with it when it came with its charming and enticing ways.

Russia also understands the combined military strength of the armies of the bloc the US is heading and knows what they can collectively do whenever they decide to do anything. Because any eventual war between it and NATO will produce a rippling effect that will spread to other parts of the planet and possibly ruin it, it has been using Ukraine to speak to western countries and other detractors in military terms not to do what they may be planning or tempted to because it will not be easy.

That's one of the reasons why President Putin commanded his nuclear troops to be on high alert. They have so been since then. He doesn't really want to use nuclear weapons but wants all to know he can when pushed too far. The world is separated from the devastations of that experience by just a simple decision. In addition, the Russian Defense Ministry recently approved the use of Hypersonic Aeroballistic Missiles in Ukraine. They were launched from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in March. The use of the missiles was not just to destroy the Ukrainian underground warehouse which contained dangerous weapons as stated by the ministry but was also to remind enemies who may be forgetting that Russia possesses such mind-melting weapons and will not hesitate to use them if that becomes necessary. It is worth noting that Hypersonic Missiles are among the most devastating weapons in existence. They are so fast that they travel at between 5 to 25 times the speed of sound. Very few countries possess them and even those who do are still to have the full technology to detect and stop some categories when launched, especially the Russian S-500 Prometheus. It is unique both in performance and the engineering knowledge invested in it. It's the first time the country used them and there's a reason for that. Technology has made mass killing and great destruction easier. The future of humans and of the planet is in the hands of certain leaders. One decision from any of them can put an end to much of what exists and bring the world to a standstill.

For now, the West will continue using its strategy of avoiding any direct military confrontation with Russia mainly because of the financial, human and environmental cost. It should be noted that Western democracy and liberalism compel leaders to harken to the voices of their people and respect their rights and choices. They take part in governing their lands. Because many of them don't want war at this stage, their leaders are compelled to continue exercising patience and using alternative solutions in the face of provocation. But the Kremlin should know that patience has limits and behaviours need to be adjusted when green starts showing signs of changing to red. Many in the western bloc, especially leaders, think it is Putin, not Russia, who is responsible for what is going on in Ukraine. They hold that a huge number of Russians don't want the war but because Putin wants it, everyone is going through that ordeal. According to the argument, Putin has made himself Russia such that his choices and desires are Russia's as well. It is obvious that after exercising tolerance for a reasonable period, a time will come when many will find it necessary to face Putin and put an end to his perceived shenanigans if he chooses to remain unresponsive to the pain and suffering they think he's causing others. It is unlikely that things will get to this point in the short-term but remains a possibility all parties are preparing for because it may happen spontaneously without giving anyone another time to prepare. The world will get there if things continue moving in the current rhythm.

It is clear that Western secret services and intelligence bodies would have preferred to overthrow Putin or plot a complete change of government if it were a different country. But they'll not go for this option because it will not work easily in Russia. Putin has that country firmly in his hands and can be hard to lure into a good number of  man-made traps. Moreover, he perfectly understands such businesses and can slip off one's fingers or avoid swallowing even the most invisible of hooks in a manner so hard to explain. A former KGB Agent who is fit for the job of Grandmaster or Chief Priest of any cult specialised in plotting the overthrow of governments, he can mentor coup plotters and assassins and teach them the intricacies and most sophisticated techniques of such assignments. However, because he's a human being and not a spirit, it is possible for him to fall in the most unexpected of ways if he doesn't take his time. The international stage is too slippery for anyone not to be careful while on it. None can claim complete mastery of it.

Increasingly, the likes of China and India will be drifting towards Russia as the west continues to walk away. Interest, not friendship, determines the way states behave and who they choose to befriend at a given moment. The westerners thus need to be careful with their multiplication of sanctions on Russia. At times, it is done based more on sentiments and the desire to prove a point than on rationality. Russia anticipated much of what is happening and prepared seriously. The countries dishing out sanctions may end up more sanctioned if Moscow's calculations move as planned.

There are three main fronts on which the battles of this war are fought. The side that will perform better in all three will have an edge over the other. They include: i) The Economic Front ii) Media Front iii) Military Front. The economic is crucial and needs the best of strategies. What happens there affects the other two significantly. The West thought it will quickly knockout Russia on this front but so far, it has not. Instead, the Kremlin has pushed the heat to their side and they're under more pressure than their calculations predicted. Now, they're being more careful and less hasty than before.

Other actors are rushing in to eat fat from their abandoned fields. China, for example, is a smooth operator and lover of economic opportunities. It doesn't wish to have anyone abandon their economic fortresses. But if for any reason someone does, it will gladly and gradually show up with its characteristic shrewdness to take over completely or get as much of what is available as possible. No one should expect it to show solidarity with the departing westerners by staying away from Russia  because it will not. So the withdrawal of the likes of Mastercard, Visa and other western businesses from the Russian economy will only have a short-term effect on Russia. Chinese and Indian payment methods and banking expertise will flow in to nullify the effects the westerners intended creating.

This China-Russia and Russia-India friendship will grow stronger as the war persists. Russia needs China not just for economic reasons but also to counter any smart move the West may want to use the United Nations or international law to carry out against it. It should be indicated that the two are among the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. Each has a Veto Power and will use it to pull a plug and upset any unappreciated move from anyone at this point. China will accept and promote this friendship not because it likes Russia but because the economic opportunities the withdrawing westerners are creating for it are just too many.

The Kremlin will also take advantage of current occurrences to hit a hard economic blow on western economies by targeting whatever will make life difficult for their  citizens in order to move their anger against their governments and increase pressure on them. This is intended to raise the possibility of leaders committing serious blunders or multiplying their mistakes as a result of excessive pressure. Therefore, much will be done by Russia, as a matter of strategy, to increase the prices of basic commodities and the cost of living in western countries.

Though the US can fight things like rising oil and gas prices by turning to its reserves, it is still a point for Russia because those reserves were kept for subsequent generations given that oil is a finite resource nations will eventually run out of someday. Using much of it now and even draining all the reserves, is a pleasant thing to Moscow. It is working according to its plan. The US never knew it will turn to those reserves and use so much in 2022 but now it knows. Unlike other fronts of war, economic war can take one to a place and direction they least expected.

Russia will also attack the dollar and try to reduce its value and acceptability as the currency for international trade. It will do this by questioning the use of the American currency and magnifying its own currency, the Ruble, as well as those of non-western nations. But it will not succeed a lot here because the dollar will remain the main currency of transacting business on the global market. The Ruble will not be able to come even close to the Euro.

India, Brazil and South Africa will equally be lured to come closer to Russia using arguments connected to BRICS, inter alia. The bloc's vision will be expanded and its influence strengthened to spread and counterbalance the protracted hegemony of the West on the global stage.

For their part, the majority of African states and many others around the world have been silent but following the evolution of things with interest. They know it's a matter that also concerns them because the impact will meet everyone no matter their distance from the epicentre of the war. Some are thinking of where their support should go while others are reflecting on the best action to take that will not trap or disadvantage them in the future. If it were solely on humanitarian grounds, Ukraine will instantly get their support because there is much to make anyone feel for the country and its citizens. But because International Relations is not a sentimental but pragmatic matter where gain determines direction, only those to gain something from supporting Ukraine will do so. Others will withhold their support and use it as a negotiation or bargaining bait to get something big and more satisfactory from the international stage. They may argue, for instance, that they have had many wars, suffered from acute food shortages and experienced serious humanitarian crises but never saw Ukraine. The country stayed unmoved and has never been known to be one of those who habitually rush to the aid of others, especially countries of the South, during crises. The argument may further go that it should not be expecting to reap where it did not sow during its own moment of trial and pain because life does not function like that and such expectations are unfounded because no one owes it support. It should be made clear that support is not a light thing in international affairs. It is wealth; others see it as a resource. They use it to negotiate or bargain.

These are thus delicate moments. The world can either get united or divided. The war in Ukraine has a huge international significance. We are in the phase of making friends and bolstering camps in preparation for bigger things. Though NATO is very strong, the United States understands that the burden of any war it embarks on at this point will rest more on it than on other members. It is thus taking its time not because of weakness but because of responsibility and the necessity to act with wisdom even when infuriated. France, for instance, is not as strong as was the case many years ago. Its name is still there but not the power to enable it play the lead role in global affairs as the likes of Napoleon Bonaparte desired. Its popularity in, and authority on, many former colonies which contributed in keeping it afloat has declined significantly. It may not be helped by many of them as was the case in the First and Second World Wars if, in dealing with any of its enemies, it opts for war instead of diplomacy.

For their part, many of the newly admitted Eastern European countries are Light and Middle Powers who are in the Organization for the mere sake of their own safety. They're counting on the Major Powers and Superpower. Since presidential elections are just few years away and given that the handling of foreign policy is crucial in determining who stays in or leaves the White House, President Biden will prefer a diplomatic victory in Ukraine to any costly war that may be easier to start than stop. A lengthy war will drain the patience of many Americans and stir the ire of voters, including even those who were initially in favour of war. Dissatisfied, they will react by showing Biden the exit door to try something new. But if taking on Putin ever gets judged as the best decision at any point in time, the United States and NATO will mobilise their allies to do just that. They're not a timid people and know when one should be added extra time and when they've exhausted their opportunity and should be brought to account. They also know when any form of appeasement, including an endless display of tolerance and patience, is the wrong thing to do on the international stage because there is a time when fire should answer when fire comes calling and another when hugs and handshakes are the required gestures to seal the deal.

You can contact Dr. Arrey directly through his email above or through the University of Buea.