The power politics behind Russia-Ukraine tensions

(Link on DailyTrust)

As the heightened tension on the Russia-Ukraine border subsides with Russia’s gradual albeit partial withdrawal of its combat-ready troops, the power politics behind the whole crisis continues to unfold. 

Over the past several weeks, Russia’s massive military buildup towards the border triggered fear across major Western capitals of its looming invasion of Ukraine. The hallmarks of impending war were all over the place. The global media was awash with frightening analyses warning of a possible confrontation. Many countries advised their citizens living in Ukraine to either leave or remain on the alert, while other countries advised would-be travellers to reconsider travelling there.

Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts went into high gear to prevent further escalation and douse the attendant tensions. Politicians and diplomats in Washington, Paris, Berlin and other major Western capitals were deeply absorbed in frantic efforts in that regard. 

Also, though all along Ukraine has maintained its “readiness” to defend itself in the face of Russian aggression, that’s rightly seen as a mere face-saving tactic. After all, its officials and diplomats were out there literally begging for de-escalation. At the height of the tensions, Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain, Vadym Prystaiko suggested that, for the sake of peace, his country may reconsider its ambition to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which Russia is hell-bent on preventing at any cost; though the ambassador subsequently retracted the remarks, apparently under pressure.  

Interestingly, however, Russia actually never had any intention of invading Ukraine, in the first place, after all. President Putin has only resorted to playing power politics that way to blackmail both Ukraine and NATO into abandoning the planned inclusion of the former in the latter. The US and its NATO allies were already aware of that, yet they feigned tactical naivety while exaggeratedly warning of an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine to portray the former as a belligerent country hell-bent on bullying the weaker countries. 

Anyway, since coming into power two decades ago, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been increasingly committed to reviving and assuming the role of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), which collapsed in 1991; a development that resulted in the spring of 15 sovereign countries, including Russia, in its place. 

Russia somehow ended up with the largest territorial share and the Soviet’s military arsenal, which made it the largest country on earth and the second largest military power in the world. 

The former Soviet Union had led a NATO rival alliance known as The Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) amid raging geopolitical and global power struggle (Cold War) between the US-led West and its allies, on the one hand, and the Soviet-led East and its allies, on the other. 

However, amid worsening turmoil and towards the Soviet’s eventual breakup, WTO was dissolved in 1990 in the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall that signalled the reunification of the Soviet-inclined socialist East Germany and the US-inclined capitalist West Germany, which gave rise to the Republic of Germany. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union gave NATO a free hand to expand not only to the former Soviet’s traditional sphere of influence i.e. Central and Eastern Europe where more than 10 countries have joined but also to the former Soviet republics as well, i.e. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Georgia, Ukraine, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been recognized as aspiring members, which means their inclusion is just a matter of time. 

President Putin rightly considers NATO’s continued expansion to Eastern Europe a strategy aimed at sabotaging Russia’s geopolitical influence in the region and beyond. NATO is worried about Putin’s increasingly growing geopolitical and global influence at the expense of its members. Though many countries in the region have already joined NATO, President Putin has been committed to reversing the trend and frustrating further inclusions. In that regard, he is particularly interested in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus for their particular significance to Russia’s strategic interests.  

Though Putin may not invade Ukraine, he isn’t likely to abandon his plan to impose a Russia-influenced political reality in the country that would frustrate the insistence of the country’s current Western-influenced political elites to join the organisation. 

NATO, including the United States and, of course, Ukraine live with the fact that tackling Russia militarily was/is never an option, and won’t be in the foreseeable future, either. Russia isn’t only disproportionately stronger than Ukraine, but, being the second-largest military power on earth, is also too strong to be tackled even by the United States and the other NATO members combined. A full-scale war between Russia and, say, the US or any equally major military wouldn’t only culminate in the annihilation of the warring parties but would equally cause the annihilation of most, if not the entire, world, for that matter.  

Likewise, even economic sanctions won’t work in this regard, because major European economies including Germany, which is the largest depend largely on Russian gas. Besides, about 70 per cent of foreign investments in Russia are owned by some NATO members. Other mutual economic interests equally explain the counterproductive effects of full-scale economic sanctions against Russia on Europe’s major economies as well.  

How Russia overshadows France in Africa

(Link on Daily Trust)

France’s hitherto undisputed influence in Africa is being increasingly overshadowed by Russia’s growing influence across the continent. 

Over the decades, Africa has been largely a French exclusive sphere of influence under the longstanding tacit understanding amongst the major world powers to share most of the rest of the world as spheres of influence among themselves.

While other major powers exercise influence over their respective spheres quite tactfully, France exercises it in Africa in a quite domineering way, thereby overshadowing countries like South Africa and Nigeria; and indeed rendering them bereft of continental influence befitting their weight in the continent. 

Moreover, French activities in the continent have always been enmeshed in one controversy or another. From particularly blatant exploitation to subversive activities against many governments including its supposed allies, France is largely viewed in the continent as a bully too strong to be tamed by its victims, and too influential to be challenged by its fellow superpowers whose interests are, after all, never affected anyway. Besides, France generally effectively represents Western interests in the continent. 

French forces are spread across many countries in the continent supposedly on a mission to fight terrorism and other forms of organized crime. There are also many French-linked “humanitarian organizations” ostensibly providing humanitarian services to the displaced. However, there has always been a quite credible suspicion of their involvement in the perpetuation of insecurity and instability amid which they perpetuate the systematic plunder of the countries’ mineral resources. 

Likewise, many incidents of government overthrow and/or assassination of politicians opposed to French activities in their countries have been linked to Paris. Many instances of the rise and reign of governments and political elites committed to doing the French biddings at the expense of their respective countries have been equally linked to successive French governments. 

France’s purported pursuit of terrorists in many African countries has always been the pretext on which it justifies the continued stay and deployment of its forces and intelligence units. 

Meanwhile, the international community continue to turn a blind eye to the largely credible allegations against French activities in those countries whose individual and collective diplomatic weight, if any, remains too insignificant to arouse the conscience of the international community, let alone prompt appropriate actions. Their growing tendency of turning to Russia is, therefore, quite understandable. 

Russia has what it takes in terms of diplomatic weight and, of course, military and intelligence capabilities to not only tackle terrorist groups but also expose French activities in the region. The affected governments capitalise on the persistent tensions between Russia, on the one hand, and Euro-American countries, on the other, to involve the former in the situation to introduce a balance to the power equation. 

The ongoing face-off between France and Mali rages in that context. The authorities in Mali advised the French ambassador in Bamako to leave. Anti-France sentiment has equally been raising in the country and beyond amid growing suspicion over French activities and their suspected impact on security and stability across the region. 

Anyway, realistically speaking, French presence in those countries is too established to be significantly undermined in the foreseeable future by the advent of Russia on the scene. After all, apparently for tactical reasons, Russia is still reluctant to officially confirm its growing involvement there. Also, though its military-related pacts with African countries are growing, it still largely operates through its private military company Wagner whose mercenaries are increasingly active in Africa and beyond on behalf of Moscow. 

Interestingly, Wagner mercenaries operate also in Nigeria, according to a Euronews report, which suggests that they are out there since at least last year assisting the Nigerian authorities in the fight against Boko-Haram and ISWAP terrorists in the North-East. 

In any case, just like France and other major powers, Russia is equally only pursuing its own economic and strategic interests in its growing involvement in different countries around the world. In its growing African adventure, in particular, it simply wants to dislodge France in the plunder of the countries’ resources and to indeed outmanoeuvre it in influence in the region. On their part, the governments partnering with it aren’t unaware of that fact; they only consider Russia a lesser evil that may not end up as treacherous and exploitative as France anyway. 

Meanwhile, France and Euro-American countries are increasingly worried, while Russia remains hell-bent on further expansion at their expense. The struggle can be better understood when viewed against the backdrop of the raging struggle for influence between the two parties. 

The affected African countries cannot afford to lose either party; they should act smartly enough to secure the maximum benefit at the minimum cost from both.