A New Cold War? What A Bore! By Cameron Duodu

As a citizen of a tiny state which wouldn’t last five minutes if a Great Power were to aim its guns and missiles on it, I am completely on the side of Ukraine in this mad conflict, which has set the world back three decades.

We are back to the days of “The Cold War”. Nuclear alerts; economic sanctions; hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from a war they did not start. Is this what we expected of the ending of the Cold War? More Cold War? What a bore!

Did the world fail to do its homework before uncorking the champagne bottles in 1989 and the euphoric years immediately following the “Falling of the Berlin Wall”?

I am sure that if the world community had done its homework, it would have foreseen that it should take measures to ring-fence the “new international political order” with railings so strong in nature that something harder than diamonds (!) to construct the ring-fence; something like wurtzite boron nitride (w-BN). Yep – we needed something unheard of by most people in the world, to preserve the novel state of “no-war” that we were entering into, that was so unusual that it boggled the mind. But we were all so drunk looking for a so-called “peace dividend” that very obvious things escaped our notice.

The world was naïve in believing that the Soviet Union had been “defeated” in the Cold War and that it was fair game to mock at it. We are now paying the price for our naivety.

You see, when the Soviet Union was dissolved on December 25, 1991 (two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall), there were signs already that the world might be entering a rickety era, built on serious illusions. Did the date – Christmas Day – not imply that “atheistic communism” had been replaced with Christianity in the former Soviet Union? Hadn’t right-wing circles in the West been preaching for years that this would happen? But are right-wing speculations a good guide to the adoption of realistic conclusions about the state of the world?

Could anyone foretell what the future held for a country with such a huge population as the USSR? But sceptics were not listened to. Someone called Francis Fukuyama even published a book that suggested that strife itself was going to end in the affairs of nations. He called the book The End of History. Pray, the “end” of whose history? The countries that had fought two “world wars?” Wasn’t the suggestion a sick joke?

Anyway, actions by the Western Powers soon made it clear that they regarded “new Russia” as a country that, although no longer quite a ”hostile nation”, was nevertheless to be treated as a potential enemy!

So, Russia’s dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was greeted as a great “victory” by the West. And without a thought for what the Russians might think, the West immediately began absorbing into NATO! [the North Atlantic Organisation!)

But if the Warsaw Pact no longer existed, against whom was it necessary for an expanded NATO to defend the former members of the Pact (minus Russia)?

The West’s reluctance to face that issue truthfully and convincingly is the root cause of the current crisis.

For not every Russian thought like Mikhail Gorbachev, or Boris Yeltsin. The evidence for this was unmistakably provided by the anti-Gorbachev coup attempt of 21 August 1991.

Where was Vladimir Putin and what did he think? He certainly read the post-Soviet political cards and was not happy at what they revealed. Did he tie his political cloth more tightly around Yeltsin’s robes the more easily to repudiate Yeltsin later?

Certainly, from Yeltsin’s side, Putin would have closely observed how the NATO allies were treating Russia like dirt. Their attitude to Russia reached its apogee when, after a conference in Bucharest, Romania, on 08 May. 2014, they spelt out their position with brutal frankness. “We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance (their communique stated)” met today to enlarge our Alliance and further strengthen our ability to confront the existing and emerging 21st century security threats…..”

They did not specify who would constitute these “existing and emerging security threats”. But in the context, whom could they have had in mind, other than Russia? Wasn’t Russia the only country which, at the time, could match the West with regard to the worst threat of all time, a nuclear threat?

Without anticipating the possible reaction of Russia, the NATO communique went on: “The principle of the indivisibility of Allied [i.e. NATO] security is fundamental. A strong collective defence of our populations, territory and forces, is the core purpose of our Alliance, and remains our most important security task…..

Today, we have decided to invite Albania and Croatia to begin accession talks to join our Alliance.… The accession of these new members will strengthen security for all in the Euro-Atlantic area, and bring us closer to our goal of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace….”

Then came this bombshell: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations.”

Now, both Georgia and Ukraine were former constituent nations of the Soviet Union, together with Russia. They did not merely have borders with Russia. They were INSIDE the former Soviet Union, whose leader was Russia, and had been so for over 70 years!!

However, the sensitive rebuff to Russia that this NATO declaration represented rang no bells in Washington, London or Paris and the NATO declaration of intent blithely went on: “We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. …. We will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level, to address the questions still outstanding, pertaining to their applications [to join NATO].”

The NATO document revealed that the Alliance was not unaware of Russia’s potential unease over the stance of NATO, and it warned that NATO supported “the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova” (neighbours of Russia). NATO promised: “We will continue to support efforts towards a peaceful settlement of these regional conflicts”.

Russia crises then unfolded as follows: 2014 – the seizure of Ukraine’s ‘breakaway regions’ – Donetsk and Luhansk – by Russian-backed rebels, in what came to be known as the “Crimean invasion”;

Following a so-called “ceasefire,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, urged US President Joe Biden to allow Ukraine to “join NATO”. This request was met with “hostility” from Russian President Vladimir Mr Putin;

In January 2022, Russia began sending troops to Ukraine;

24 February 2022: Full Russian invasion of Ukraine launched. Fighting between Russia and Ukraine still going on.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, have imposed economic sanctions against Russia, making it impossible, or difficult, for Russian banks – and certain targeted millionaires alleged to be close to President Putin – to carry out financial transactions in the Western countries, where most of them hide their money.

The UN Security Council met on 26 February 2022 to discuss the crisis. As expected, Russia, a permanent member of the Council, vetoed a resolution that demanded that Russia “immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops”.

Eleven of the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, with 4 abstaining (China, India, and the United Arab Emirates).

Speaking to journalists, the UN Secretary-General, Mr António Guterres, stressed that while the United Nations had “not achieved its primary objective to end the war, we must never give up. We must give peace another chance. Soldiers need to return to their barracks. Leaders need to turn to the path of dialogue and peace” (he said).

Meanwhile, it is estimated that about one million people have left Ukraine and are pouring into neighbouring countries, especially, Poland and Hungary. They are living under extremely stressful conditions, waiting for hours at train and bus stations, in perishing weather, and without a firm assurance that they will be allowed to go into the countries they would prefer to live in.

Who would have believed that when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, this chaotic situation would be the “Peace Dividend” that would greet the touted “new, Cold War-free” world?

By Cameron Duodu