The tragedy of America playing Russian Roulette with Ukraine
ZANNY Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-chief of the Economist, recently told The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart that “aiding Ukraine, giving the money to Ukraine is the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security”.
He elaborated: “The fighting is being done by the Ukrainians; they’re the people who are being killed.”
This, in a powerful way, somehow begins to shine the light on why some powerful people who are aligned with President Joe
Biden’s administration would rather have an open-ended conflict in Ukraine. It benefits in quite complex ways the military-industrial complex of the US. War is a business.
The longer it continues, the more the profits that see beneficiaries smiling all the way to the bank whilst on the battlefield far away, more than 100,000 Ukrainians have lost their lives in the two years since the conflict began. Motivated mainly by business objectives, critics of the war have opined that the US will fight its proxy war with Russia – albeit from afar – “to the last Ukrainian”.
It is difficult to argue against this stated standpoint. Why, one may ask, is there hardly any talk of negotiating an end to the conflict and instead, in quite aghast manner, the domineering Western narrative is that of war-mongering?
Only this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin went public with a vehement denial peddled in the Western media to the effect that Russia could attack a NATO country. At this point in the 21st century, it has become crystal clear that wars are not necessarily won on the battlefield with the barrel of a gun, but rather through the art of propaganda.
The manipulation of the willing mainstream media, often under the pretence of being patriotic, has reached heights that grossly undermine the traditional status of the media as the trusted Fourth Estate. It was perhaps Sen. Roger Wicker, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who captured it crudely when he told the Associated Press last year: “The Ukrainians are willing to fight the fight for us if the West will give them the provisions. It’s a pretty good deal,” he was quoted as saying.
He was also on record as having said about the astronomical figures the US Congress had approved for Ukraine: “It is a relatively modest amount that we are contributing without being asked to risk life and limb.”
Others, like North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, have described the war funding in bragging terms, saying: “I call that a bargain.”
The US Senate Minority Leader,
Mitch Mcconnell, putting his two pence worth on the subject, said: “No Americans are getting killed in
Ukraine.
We’re
rebuilding our industrial base. The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with that.”
Others see what President Biden has outlined as unwavering material support for Ukraine when he said the US will support Kyiv “whatever it takes”. Another Senator, Richard Blumenthal, had argued that “Americans should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment”. I quote the above literature to illustrate that with the US involvement as the main backer of the Zelensky administration, there is more than meets the eye.
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s globe-totting schedule, plus his regular address to various parliaments on social media platforms such as Teams and Zoom, reflects a carefully choreographed performance behind which there is a bottomless pit of financial support.
The tragedy,
Heavens forbid, continues to be the loss of dozens of lives – almost at the letter of expediency, I may add. It is needless. Ultimately, the warring parties will come to the table to thrash out the modalities around the end game. It is an inevitable end to any conflict – negotiations. That Kyiv’s backers have opted to place a truce down their packing order is a travesty indeed.
It reveals, in so many ways, the insatiable appetite for profits. Big American names have been listed in the list of beneficiaries. They include, prominently, President Biden’s son Hunter Biden. He has been associated with energy deals in Ukraine through the Us-ukraine Business Council, a surreptitious vehicle for dubious dealings.
The Republicans have sought to impeach President Biden ostensibly on account of the involvement of Hunter Biden’s questionable involvement in Ukraine business dealings.
It is a move that has shaken the Democrats somewhat.
It is a fire Republicans have gleefully started in the year of the elections scheduled for November 5, just around the corner.
In the period leading up to the elections, the Republicans would find delight in President Biden’s discomfort brought about by the simmering threat of impeachment, just as the Democrats attempted to impeach Donald Trump, not once, but twice, unsuccessfully.
Outcome
Therefore, the outcome matters not so much. The very ordeal of having to go through ignominy of the process itself is enough to trigger glee among political opponents. It’s called politics. Dirty politics. But then again, there’s rarely any sight of clean politics whenever Republicans are pitted against the Democrats.
The two sides often converge in non-partisan form in the arena of foreign policy. Two particular examples stand out like a sore thumb. They are (1) Ukraine and (2) Israel. The blind support for the two courses, if you will, is unmistakable.
Ultimately, especially in the case of Ukraine, I submit that Washington is playing Russian roulette with Ukrainian lives. Additionally, the Palestinians, too, through their provision of tonnes of bombs and diplomatic cover to the “genocidal” Israeli Defence Force (IDF), the International Court of Justice ruled this week.
For as long the question mark hangs like an albatross around the neck of Hunter Biden, and the political discourse within Congress unconvincing, the benefits that the Industrial Military Complex continues to rake in will seem no different to the blood diamonds.
(Abbey Makoe is the Publisher and Editor-in-chief of Global South Media Network)