Africa and Russian krainian War: Beyond the Russo NATO Struggle for Global Hegemony
The Russian-Ukrainian war is interesting from various perspectives. First is it a war? If it is, which type of war? Is it a lawful war? Is it not a war of attrition? WesterncountriescallitaRussianinvasionwhilethe Russians say it is a‘Special Military Intervention.’The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) calls it an aggression.Whetheritisaninvasion,aspecialmilitary intervention,oraggression,theyallhavethesamedevastatingeffects.
Second, the war raises the nexus between technocratic advice and decisions of policy makers. For instance, US foreign policy technocrats havebeenwarning,andonaseriousnote,thattheUnitedStatesshould notencouragethemembershipexpansionoftheNorthAtlanticTreaty Organisation NATO) to Eastern Europe, warning that the implications couldbemoredeleterious.Thepoliticaldecisionmakerslistenedtothe advicebutneveracceptedit.Thisscenarioisparticularlyinterestingfrom theperspectiveoftheBokoHaramistsandtheGovernmentofNigeria. Academic technocrats have been proffering what the constructive approach to the containment of the insurrection should be, but their advice appears to have been falling on deaf ears. The outcome has been recidivism of terrorism.
Thirdly, the Russian-Ukrainian war has divided, more than it has united, the European Union. Several policy decisions taken by the European Union as sanctionary measures against Russia also have negative impact on some of the EU Member States. This has been to the extent that such members have been asking for exemptions.
Fourthly,thewarnotonlyraisestheissueofmembershipofcountries like Sweden and Switzerland, of the NATO, and also of the security protection of such countries in Europe. In this regard, is neutrality in international relations coming to an end in the event of Sweden and Switzerland acceding to the NATO agreement? Professor Bolaji Akinyemi already raised this issue during Session 95 of thruMYeyes with Professor Bolaji Akinyemi on Thursday, May 5, 2022, anchored by Syncterface Media.
And perhaps most interestingly, the issue of non-alignment is also necessarily raised at the level of Africa’s attitudinal disposition towards the conflict. The Ukrainian president has been strenuously courting Africa’s support. So has western diplomacy tried to do, but Africa is already sharply divided on the matter. Apart from the division at the continentallevel,thedivisionisalsodeepwithinsomecountries,because of the growing effects in various dimensions in many countries of Africa. What has been and what should be Africa’s approach to the conflict?Whatistheplaceofnon-alignmentpolicyinthisregard?How willAfricabeaffectedbytheRusso-NATOquestforglobalhegemony? How will Africa be shaped again in the emerging new world order? And more curiously, whose world order?
Africa and the War
Without jot of doubt, the Russo-Ukrainian war has just started, not simply because of the deepening of battles, with increasing Euro-American military support for Ukraine and Russia’s indication of preparedness to damn all consequences, but particularly also because of the nature of the profound causal factors of the war and the new hegemonic order that is in the making.
One factor that is not seriously talked about is the recidivist effort at de-Russification in Ukraine, the origin of which dates to more than 300 years ago.The effort was recently reactivated in the 1990s following efforts at rebranding of the Central Squares and main streets in several cities, towns, and villages by the post-Soviet governments. There were anti-Russia protests in 2004. The protests reached their crescendo in 2014 following Russian annexation of Crimea. In fact, the anti-Moscow sentiments are best imagined following Russian special military intervention in Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
While Russia is pointing accusing fingers to Ukraine for‘ era sing Russian culture and even a genocide of Russian-speaking Ukrainians,’as well as describing Ukrainian culture as‘ nationalist’ and‘ parochial ,’ Ukrainian President Vol ody my rh as simply responded that Russia herself is directly responsible for the de-Russification. In his words,‘you are doing it – in one generation’s lifetime and for ever.You are doing your best so that our people abandon the Russian language, because Russian will be associated with you, only with you, with these explosions and killings with your crimes.’This explication is sarcastic, underscoring the point that it is the Russian special military intervention that compels and that will continue to compel de-Russification in Ukraine.
Put differently, efforts at de-Russification in Ukraine have the potential to continue for a longer time to come. The mere fact that there are also millions of pro-Russia people in Ukraine means that internal contradictions cannot be quickly removed. Additionally,
Russia appears to be targeting total victory at all costs, with the expectation that there might be a new strategic approach to the war come Monday, 9 May 2022 which is considered as Russia’s remembrance of their Victory Day.
It is important to recall here that on 22 June 1941, Russia was massivelyinvadedbyNaziGermanywhichsaidthatallSlavswere less-than-humans.Andtrue,Germanywaswinningthebattlesin the beginning but, because of her strategic miscalculation that the war would not take more than three months to bring the Russians to their knees, the Nazi government felt there was no needforprovisionofwintermaterials.Mostunfortunately,Russians resisted gallantly the invasion, and by so doing prolonging the war through the winter period. Russia resisted the invasion at very high costs: not less than 26.6 million Soviet lives were lost, of which 8,668,400 were military and about ten million civilians, accordingtotheRussianAcademyofSciences.Sovietpopulation in June 1941 was 196,700,000. It was reduced to 170,500,000 as at 1 January 1946.
Moreimportant,on8May1945,theGermanforcessurrendered to the Russian Red Army. The surrender took place on 8 May, Western European time, but on May 9 in the Soviet Union, hence RussianscommemoratetheirVictoryDayeveryMay9sincethen. ThissentimentofVictoryDaycannotbutbecarriedtothecurrent Ukrainianbattlefieldtomorrow,May9,2022.Consequently,Africa must begin to evolve a long-term view of and policy on the war beyond the shooting war on the battle fields.
Secondly,theAfricanUnionisnotunitedtotheextentofadopted a united front vis-à-vis the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. In fact, the disunity,asnotedabove,isnotonlymanifestedcontinentally,but also at the national level.The case of South Africa is noteworthy: while President Cyril Ramaphosa holds the NATO responsible for the war, the main opposition leader of the Democratic Alliance in South Africa, John Steenhuisen is hobnobbing with the
Ukrainian president.
John Steenhuisen, MP, went on a six-day visit to Ukraine for an onthe-spot evaluation of the alleged devastating effects of the Russian invasion. In the words of Steenhuisen,‘I am in Ukraine to see for myself andspeakformycountry.Someonemust.ItisstronglyinSouthAfrica’s interest with the free world and come out hard against Russian aggression… In the era of fake news and propagandas, this is the only way to truly know what is happening.’
More important, the visit was prompted by the knock-on effect of the war on South Africa’s‘own fuel, maize, cooking oil and fertilizer prizes (which) will reach deep into the pockets of poor South Africans whocanalreadynotmakeendsmeet.’Whilequestionscanberaisedas to why it should be the responsibility of an opposition to be speaking for his country outside of Africa, there can be no disputing the fact that South Africa appears to have adopted a dualist strategy towards the Russo-Ukrainian war. The dualist approach is to be able to speak to both sides or opening the communication lines to the two countries: RamaphosacondemningtheNATOwhileSteenhuisenpitcheshiscamp with Ukraine. President Ramaphosa has argued that ‘the war could havebeenavoidedifNATOhadheededthewarningsfromamongstits leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region,’(Vide Al Jazeera and News Agencies, May 5, 2022).
ThepatternofAfricanattheUnitedNationsvotingoncondemnation of the Russian invasion is another reflection of the non-coordinated approachtotheconflict.On2ndMarch2022theUNGeneralAssembly adopted a resolution which condemned‘Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.’It was voted by 141 out of the 193 Member States of the organisation. 35 countries abstained from voting. Of the 35 abstaining countries, 17 of them were from Africa. Eritrea was the only African country that voted against the resolution.
South Africa was against the resolution, noting that she‘expected thattheUNresolutionwouldforemostwelcomethecommencement of dialogue between the parties and seek to create the conditions for these talks to succeed. Instead, the call for peaceful resolution through political dialogue is relegated to a single sentence close to the conclusion on the final text. This does not provide the encouragement and international backing that the parties need to continue with their efforts.’The African Union wanted Russia to respect international law and Ukraine’s sovereignty.
As regards Nigeria, Nigeria voted to condemn Russian invasion but abstainedfromthevotesuspendingRussiafromtheUNHumanRights Council of the UNGA. A total of 93 countries voted in favour of suspension, 58 countries abstained while 24 countries voted against. Algeria, Burundi, CAR, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Mali, and Zimbabwe votedagainstthesuspension.ApartfromNigeria,Eswatini,TheGambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Namibia,Niger,Senegal,SouthAfrica,SouthSudan,Togo,andUganda abstained from voting.
Thus, African countries have not only shown uncoordinated and uncommonapproachtotheRusso-Ukrainianwar,butalsoanattitudinal non-alignment. And the reasons cannot far-fetched. A country like Egypt that wheat importations from Russia and Ukraine were to the tune of 45% cannot be expected to take side. In fact, the United States InstituteofPeacehasitthatthereisanimpendingfoodscarcityinAfrica, based on the consideration that in 2020 alone, Africa $4bn and $2.9bn worth of agricultural products respectively from Russia and Ukraine. And with the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, prices of corn, wheat and soybeans have surged. And more disturbingly, the Institute also says thatabout20mpeopleintheSahelandWestAfricadonothaveaccess to sufficient food. This is apart from the impact on oil exploration activities by Lukoil andTatneft Oil companies, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea (Cameroon, Congo Kinshasa, Equatorial Guinea, and Nigeria, which are likely to be suspected. How does Africa respond to these challenges?
The Struggle for Global Hegemony
TheRusso-Ukrainianwarisstrategicallyastruggleforthemaintenance of the Euro-American driven global hegemony. As such, the war is not simply between Russia and Ukraine. The war is in three layers: RussoUkrainian,Euro-Ukrainian,andRusso-AmericandominatedNATO.Atthe first level of Russia and Ukraine, the question of Ukraine’s membership of the NATO is a very critical issue. Ukraine is being encouraged, if not being pressured, to join the NATO. Russia is vehemently opposed to such membership, considering the security implications. For Russia, considering the recidivist de-Russification in various manners, and based on Europe’s subtle militarisation of Ukraine, Russia wants to completelyneutraliseUkraineandremovewhateverthecountrystands for and that makes her attractive to NATO countries. In the absence of any relevant Ukraine, the NATO would have been weakened.
AtthesecondlevelofEuro-Ukrainianstrategy,thesupportforUkraineis preventivedefence.TheEUdoesnotwanttheextensionoftheUkrainian shooting war to come nearer the borders of the EU countries, hence theneedtohelpUkrainianstofighttheirbattleathome,andtomakeit more difficult and more costly for Russia to win the war. Besides, there is the need to also ensure the sustenance of cordial ties with Ukraine, considered the most important ally of the EU in the context of the Union’sEasternPartnershipsandtheEuropeanNeighbourhoodPolicy. And true enough, the EU and Ukraine have been making efforts to go beyond relationships of partnership to efforts at politico-economic integration. This ultimate objective requires cautionary policies that can prevent much destruction and sustain Ukraine.
“
It is additionally noteworthy that the protective measures provided for Europeans at the borders with Ukraine do not consider the non-European refugees at the borders. Many were Africans seeking refuge at the border but were ignored. But very ridiculously, the same EU is seeking the understanding and support of Africa for Ukraine and Europe. What a contradiction! Without doubt, the United States is struggling hard to maintain its hegemonic power, using NATO countries as foundation. Russia is seriously challenging the rationale for sustaining US hegemony with the support of China, another main challenger to contend with. On both sides, Africa is quietly being courted for support. The critical interest is no longer the use of Africa as a source of raw materials for the development of Europe, but the critical need to prevent the replacement of Euro-American influence with Sino-Russian influence in Africa. France, “for instance, is currently challenged by unexpected hostility in many Francophone African countries. Consequently, Africa must prepare for how the United States and its allies and Russia with China are most likely to engage Africa in the conduct and management of global affairs. In other words, how should Africa respond to the emerging hegemonic powers?