Syed Tosharaf Ali :
In his recent statement, President Biden emphasised the United States’ dedication to supporting Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian Federation and Israel in its efforts to combat the Palestinian Hamas. He described this support as a wise investment, noting that it will yield dividends for the long-term safety of the United States. President Biden has also appealed to the US Congress for additional support, which we believe is crucial.
In response to the Reuters report, Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, strongly criticised the Washington policy. Maria claimed that the US does not engage in conflicts based on ideology. In our opinion, Maria fails to grasp the distinction between ideology and strategy. When diplomatic efforts fail to address critical political issues, war becomes a regrettable necessity. War is disruptive, but when conducted with a just cause, its nature can transform from destructive to constructive. The ultimate outcome of any war holds great significance. Consider the consequences if the Axis powers had won the anti-fascist war against the Allied powers. Therefore, we must evaluate President Biden’s statement in the context of historical events.
While we may not endorse the American policy of aligning with Israel, we appreciate Joe Biden’s perspective on investing in national safety. We find no ambiguity in his stance, making Maria’s criticism somewhat puzzling. After all, her country, the Russian Federation, is also working towards the goal of safety. President Putin emphasises the importance of Russian security, and he opposes Ukraine’s NATO membership due to the potential threat it poses. It is widely known that NATO was established as a response to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. However, the Soviet Union has dissolved, and the Warsaw Pact is a chapter of history. In this changed landscape, Putin should respect the principle of national sovereignty for all countries, especially Ukraine. Ukraine, as a sovereign state with a legitimate government, should have the autonomy to manage its foreign policy without external interference.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that the Russian government no longer adheres to the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Leon Trotsky, following Lenin, conveyed that no single country can independently establish or sustain socialism. His ideas, though misunderstood in his time, remain relevant today. Russia’s current economic system is essentially state capitalism. Under a one-party system, the government controls politics, economics, journalism, and justice. An oligarch class has emerged, serving as President Vladimir Putin’s power base. They inherited the infrastructure of a superpower and are using it to reshape the political landscape of Europe. Although the European Union and the UK are suffering from the unjust and prolonged war, their responses have been measured, as they value peace and fear a nuclear conflict. They seem to have forgotten the teachings of John Foster Dulles, the former US Secretary of State, who argued in his book “War or Peace” that peace is often achieved through war, and thinking otherwise is naive.
Returning to the main point, President Putin’s claim of feeling threatened by NATO seems to be a weak excuse. Russian involvement in the war is rooted in the economic conditions of Russia. In the absence of democratic institutions, the bureaucratic elite have become the de facto rulers, exerting excessive power and suppressing the population. Rampant corruption is pervasive, and the legal system operates under constraints. Mass communication and journalism are tightly controlled by the state machinery, limiting protests, criticism, and freedom of expression. In this environment, the Russian ruling class perceives a prolonged war as a means of preserving their power. It raises questions about the war’s cost, but both Putin and Biden have garnered support from their respective populations by framing the conflict as necessary for securing their borders.
European leaders, who once aspired to lead the post-colonial world through their democratic culture, technology, diplomacy, and political acumen, now find themselves concerned about the enduring war. While they possess superior capabilities, their thinking provides no hope, trust, faith, or safety. In early September 2022, during my stay in the UK, it appeared that the general people did not anticipate the Russia-Ukraine conflict lasting this long. However, they have been proven wrong, and now they face a 6.7 per cent inflation rate. By now, the Europeans should havegot a better awareness of Russia and the USA’s policies and strategies, yet they seem detached from the harsh reality that peace often requires a journey through war. How long will they remain uninvolved in the Russian and Ukrainian conflicts?
It’s essential to note that some countries profit from the business of war, as they are both sellers and consumers of weapons. Additionally, certain non-governmental organisations receive funding from companies involved in the arms trade, and many bloggers earn substantial income by creating content related to military affairs. While it may be unsettling, the truth remains that the war economy is one of the most profitable businesses in modern times, with only a few nations eligible to participate. After World War II, there was an expectation of an era of peace, and the United Nations was established to promote peace. However, the reality has been different, as interstate conflicts persist, and the United Nations often finds itself powerless. Peace movements have not gained significant momentum. In the 20th century, a bipolar world existed, but the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a unipolar world led by the United States. The socio-economic structure remains largely unchanged, with globalisation leading to increased capital flow but also increased suffering among the working class. The war on terror, initiated by President George W. Bush in response to the devastating 9/11 attacks, has had a profound and lasting impact on political Islam. As we progress into the 21st century, it is evident that new conflicts are emerging, highlighting the urgency for resolution. The long-standing issue in Palestine remains unresolved, with new fronts continually opening, indicating a concerning trajectory towards escalating conflicts. However, it is essential to maintain hope and optimism for the future, as we anticipate the eventual emergence of a new world order that promotes peace and stability.
(The writer is a senior journalist).