First, the political economic and geo-political context.

  1. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and per force the end of the bipolar world, the US enjoyed for almost two or more decades the status of a single superpower.
  2. During this period the US took the opportunity to consolidate its hegemony (militarily in particularl) in Europe by, among other things, stretching the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) eastwords and one after another swallowing up the former East European countries in its fold. Once again, it began to surround the now Russian Federation with military bases and stationing its troops in these countries. This was meant not only to keep the Russians “out” but also to keep the Europeans “in”.
  3. Meanwhile three things were happening:
  • The US continued to wage wars on the the soil of the ‘Third World’ with impunity, unrestrained. In the process, it destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and generally behaving as a bully and the world’s policeman. It has been trying hard to visit Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia with the same fate but so far without much success. It has succeeded in devastating the Sahel, Mali is on the brink of collapse and there is a war going on our doorstep in northern Mozambique to protect France’s and US oil companies – Total and Exxon (I believe). Northern Mozambique is the poorest region while at the same time it has rich natural resources, particularly natural gas. This is only a specific example of US/Western countries vision of Africa as their exclusive backyard for exploitation of natural resources etc. [where they come into conflict with China which is very aggressively pursuing its interest in natural resources. This is another new Cold War in the making on the continent.]
  • While the US was overstretching itself militarily thus affecting its economy, China in the East and Germany in Europe were consolidating themselves as economic  (Remember Trump’s complaint that Europe – meaning mainly Germany and perhaps France – ought to share the burden of NATO!)
  • After the economic devastation and looting of Russia in no small measure aided by the US, under Putin, Russia began to pick up the pieces. (Subjectively, Putin may also have superpower ambitions but he is no fool and realizes the central significance of China).
  1. Intoxicated by its status as a single hegemon, the US perhaps forgot the possibility of the rise of another superpower in the form of China. For a long time the US tried to repeat the strategy it had used in the case of the Soviet Union – to seduce China into an arms race. But China refused to bite the bait. It focused on economics and when the time was ripe and at the time of its own choosing, China has surprised the world with its most modern and sophisticated military hardware. Yet there is no doubt that the US remains the superior military power which it uses to keep others in check.
  2.  Throughout, the US foreign policy in the Third World has been to propel disintegration of countries or reinforce it where it already existed. North-South Korea, North-South Vietnam (failed because the Vietnamese defeated the US – though over the last or so decade the US seems to be succeeding in getting Vietnam in its neo-liberal web), North-South Sudan, etc.
  3. China’s foreign policy seems to be leaning towards a multipolar world in which Europe would also be a pole. This is exactly what the US has been trying to counter. It started with supporting Brexit (though Britain was an American Trojan horse in Europe anyway.)
  4. Let us now fast forward to the current situation:
  • With the end of the Soviet Union the Warsaw Pact wound up but not NATO. In fact, NATO went on a spree of expansionism as we have seen clearly endangering Russia’s security. This is in spite of its commitments made multiple times that it will not expand NATO.
  • The current policy of the US in the Ukraine question seems to be two-fold: (i) to break a possible alliance between Germany and Russia and prevent the rise of a European pole in a multipolar world and (ii) to propel disintegration of Russia [à la Yugoslavia]. Russia is the biggest and largest country in Europe (pop. 144.1 million). Compared to Russia all other states in Europe are Lilliputians.
  1. The current war in Ukraine did not start with the Russian invasion. It started, I think, in 2004 since when the Ukrainian army has been waging a war on its Eastern side against Russian speaking population (one-third). In this war, the US/Israel have been heavily involved in arming the Ukrainian army and in nudging the Ukranian regime to continue  its military adventure – clearly trying to provoke Russia. Some 14000 lives have been lost so far.
  2. The democratically elected government of Ukraine under Yushchenko was overthrown in a coup by the current president supported by the US and Israel because of the former president’s pro-Russia stance.
  3. The current President, strictly speaking, has no political legitimacy (By the way, the current President is also the citizen of Israel).

A short remark on another question. European spokespersons are fond of saying that Russia has brought the first European war and breached peace in Europe, which reigned since World War 2 (WWII). Two points – while it is true that for the first time Europe had the longest period of relative peace in Europe since WWII, thanks to the Cold War and the bipolar world in which the two nuclear superpowers held the balance, it is not true that there was similar peace in the rest of the world. While the Cold War (and peace) generally reigned in Europe, these powers waged proxy hot wars all over the Third World beginning with the Korean War. Second, soon after the end of the Cold War, it was the US and its allies who waged a war in Europe bombing the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into smithereens. To day Yugoslavia does not exist – instead we have six republics, all of them aligned to the US/NATO.

Now coming to the question at hand – the invasion of Ukraine.

  1. First, let me make it very clear to avoid misunderstanding. In principle, I don’t support war but I am not a pacifist. Out of necessity an oppressed nation or a country may have to take up arms to protect itself and/or liberate itself. Second, we all know that in any war including this one, it is the people who suffer – it is heartbreaking when you watch on your TV screens the sufferings, the killings and maiming of people. So, I am unreservedly on the side of the Ukrainian people.
  2. … …. …. ….
  3. My position: if you must condemn the Russian invasion then, in my view, you should in the same breath and in equal measure condemn NATO and its overlord the US (and the current regime in Ukraine to bring on the war on the people ofUkraine) because/for –
  • NATO stubbornly refusing to discuss legitimate security concerns of Russia;
  • breaching various agreements including the Minsk accords;
  • arming and nudging Ukrainian regime to wage a war on its own people in Eastern Ukraine;
  • supporting the regime and almost tempting it to become a member of NATO by dangling the carrot of security and aid knowing fully well that could provoke Russia.

I, as an independent intellectual who is always on the side of the ordinary people, can and must take that stand. [It is, in my view, a poor argument that I have to choose one or the other. Either/or propositions may be the only options for opportunist politicians, but not for intellectuals of integrity who are supposed to have a broader and longer view of the phenomenon at hand.]

As a footnote, in this particular situation I would broadly agree with the Chinese position but much more with the Cuban position. While supporting the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, bring it out in broad daylight the nefarious role of Western countries in breaching this very principle all over the world and, in this case, enticing Russia to do the same.

I have expressed my views frankly and honestly because I believe we, as intellectuals, have to appreciate fully the geo-political situation of the world in relation to our continent and our country [this is absolutely crucial.] In this context: Do we realize, for instance, the gravity of the situation in Northern Mozambique, which has the potential of leading to the disintegration of that country and roping us into an armed conflict from which it would be very difficult to extricate. I think we need to discuss that rather than playing ostrich. Anyway, for another day.