Russia-Ukraine crisis: Unintended consequences of America's Ukrainian gambit

__________________

OPINION

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The Ukrainian war is not only a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the US/NATO and Russia. Ukraine is simply the battleground. And the Ukrainian army is doing the US/NATO’s bidding.

The US, 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 US-Russia relations would understand that this conflict has little to do with Kiev. There have been decades of negotiations between Russia and NATO/US 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.