No hegemonic war can be called ‘just’ by any stretch of the imagination. Events of apparent importance in war are results of trivial causes as the Bard said in Julius Caesar. Even the present aggression in Ukraine is layered and granular. There is justification from all sides but all sides are unmistakably wrong.
Shorn of propaganda one finds arguments and counter-arguments and both are disturbing. Russia could be right in giving a pushback to NATO which would have otherwise come to its doorstep and would have ended up encircling it. In the same breath, Russia could be wrong in pursuing its aggressive concept of ‘Russkiy Mir’, a Russian imperium consisting of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. It is also wrong in making short work of the nationalism of Ukrainians.
But the Ukrainians’ fightback shows a much deeper nationalism and their repugnance of losing their identity which is nothing short of an existential crisis. The Russian concept could be as empty and bankrupt as Akhand Bharat. The arms of the clock can never be wound back completely as history shows.
From the side of the US and NATO, dangling a membership of the latter despite an agreement to the contrary is hegemonic in all aspects. What the US cannot tolerate in its backyard cannot be acceptable to another military power however diminished it might be today. James Baker, the then secretary of state, and the German foreign minister had assured Gorbachev that NATO would not extend beyond the border of unified Germany.
But deep state and MIC (military-industrial complex) proved themselves to be more powerful than the leaders. NATO expanded, many countries were taken in and their militaries were re-configured. The prospects were lucrative and it was worth multibillion-dollar windfall profit for the MIC. Even a prudent policy of avoidance of inflaming Russia has been abandoned after the Obama administration. NATO-Russia Founding Act of Mutual Relations of 1997, agreeing not to station combat troops, have been reneged with the flow of events. The US has also stirred up things in Ukraine, including inciting a coup in 2014.
From the end of Ukraine, they are the sufferers. They have been aggressed upon and their civilians fight alongside their standing army against the invaders. The US will dump ammunition and, going by the statements, they may carry out Mujahideen kind of operations. The US and NATO will not put their soldiers on the ground nor they would admit Ukraine into NATO.
The net result is bound to be a wasteland of the war-ravaged country. The national aspirations may be justified but they don’t look like winners anyway. Their best chance appears to be declaring themselves as a neutral state provided their backers allow them.
India faced a Hobson’s choice with its dependence on Russian spares, repair and ammunition. With a two-front enemy configuration, it couldn’t have gone against Russia and understandably it abstained from voting in the UNSC. But the paradox is Russia is flexing muscles with China’s help and once the sanctions start hurting, Russia would be driven more into China’s arms.
With a Russia-China-Pakistan axis forming, India has got a dog bone kind of an option. India’s long-time friend may not be as reliable or may not be reliable at all in future. The present decision may be realistic and transactional, but India’s claim to moral high ground is slowly slipping away as also the claim of a seat in the global high table.
Superpowers can afford to be transactional but a wannabe superpower just doesn’t have that luxury.
The leaders who had the capacity to prevent this war failed in the litmus test of power and responsibility. Russian leadership might have been delusional in foreseeing support but the other side is no less culpable in mischief mongering. The price finally will be paid by the poor when the rich wage war and innocent civilians will die.
It doesn’t really matter which side is more right when they are all wrong. For a common man who suffers the destruction brought in by the war, it is immaterial whether it was under the flag of totalitarianism or under the holy name of liberty and democracy as Gandhi famously said. The latter has turned out to be a proxy for commercial interest, hegemonic pursuit and oneupmanship. That is the reason why Noam Chomsky with his long list of infractions by the US dubs it a terrorist state.
General Eisenhower, who had seen war up close, had wisely observed that war is a theft from the hungry and deprived, and under the cloud of war, humanity alone will be hanging on a Cross of Iron. Global South will also suffer the most with the citizens paying more for oil and food.
All who believe in the ‘just war’ are both wrong and dangerous. It is a crime against humanity and no matter how right and necessary it might appear, war is finally a terror. Casus belli is either driven by aggrandisement or is a product of megalomania.
(Views are personal)
Satya Mohanty
satya_mohanty@rediffmail.com
Former Secretary, Government of India