Africa and the Russo-Ukrainian Imbroglio: Lessons Beyond Mediating Revellers and NATO Travellers Afield

INTERNATIoNAL BY Bola A. Akinterinwa

From the perspective of polemology, the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian imbroglio is the first inter-state war since the end of World War II. The crises and conflicts that have arisen since 1945 have been intra-state. Therefore, the international community has been able to beat its chest that it has prevented transnational war thanks to the United Nations Charter. However, with the Russo-Ukrainian saga, there is now a serious threat to the maintenance of international peace and security. This is mainly because of the conflicting interests of the self-appointed mediating revellers.

The conflicting interests are getting beyond what global governance can easily control. In fact, the international questions that are being intrinsically raised are many and complex. They include the right of self-preservation of the warring parties; secession of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine; political sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as guaranteed by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum; controversy over Ukraine’s membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); imposition by the European Union (EU) and NATO of sanctions on Russia, sanctions that only serve as a catalyst in the deepening of the misunderstanding; conflicting positions of United Nations Security Council’s Permanent Members on the imbroglio; threats of use of nuclear weapons; and most importantly, the new dimensions of the struggle against unconstitutional change of government in international relations.

Until now, the issue of zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government is believed to be majorly an African problem. It is generally in Africa that coups d’état take place and that the people also support or encourage coup making when their elected leaders become democratic dictators. Put differently, intrinsic in the Russian-Ukrainian dispute is the objective of regime change. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is seen by Russia to be anti-Russia and who should therefore not be allowed to lead Ukraine. It is no surprise therefore that Russia has told the Ukrainian parliament to remove President Zelensky, who was elected in 2019, apparently as one of the conditions for peace making.

The request is undoubtedly a manifestation of unconstitutional change of Government. The main target of coups and an invasion is regime change. Both Russia and the former Soviet Union, on the one hand, and the United States and its NATO allies, on the other, are on record to have invaded other sovereign states. The imbroglio should therefore not be taken as a case in which the steam is accusing the kettle. It is against this background that Africa and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is reviewed.

Polemology of the Disorder

Polemologically, the imbroglio has prompted the emergence of mediating revellers and NATO travellers afield, both taking sanctions against Russia, but to which Russia does not bother to give any serious attention. In this case, what really is the centrifugal problem? Why is the Russian-Ukrainian saga becoming a major dynamic of a new Cold War? What are the likely scenarios of the imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine? What is the place of international politics in the resolution of the conflict? How will Africa, and particularly the ECOWAS region, be impacted upon by the Russian invasion and by international politics? And perhaps more importantly, how can Nigeria escape the domino effect of the saga in terms of the rule of self-determination and secession in all their ramifications? Who really is the agent provocateur of the crisis and conflict: Russia or the NATO? Can Ukraine be held responsible for the invasion, especially for expecting outsiders to come and help Ukrainians to fight Russia? What prevents holding the Zelensky-led government accountability for the long delay in addressing the concerns of Russia? Put differently, why is President Zelensky addressing the Russian concerns with kid gloves? Why is Ukraine now prepared to discuss the concerns of Russia following invasion? And perhaps more importantly, how can Nigeria escape the domino effect of the saga in terms of the principle of self-determination and secession? It is useful to remember here that the struggle for secession is strong in the Southeast of Nigeria while the agitation for self-determination in the Yoruba Southwest has been taken to some international instances for possible mediation.

Consequently, the Russo-Ukraine imbroglio is not simply a problem between Russia and Ukraine as two separate sovereign states, but particularly an issue between the proponents of democracy under which the right of self-determination is being claimed, on the one hand, and the proponents of the right of secession in Ukraine, on the other. In this regard, the self-determination school to which Ukraine and the NATO allies all belong, posit that it is the prerogative right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny, to determine whether it will join the NATO. The secessionist school, primarily comprising Russia and the two secessionist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, is laying historical claims to the regions and non-acceptability of Ukraine’s membership of the NATO. This is the background to the order and counter-order that have now amounted to disorder.

The international politics of the imbroglio is quite interesting. The United States and its allies, Britain and France have their veto powers potentially to be used in favour of the Ukrainian government, while Russia and China are pitching their tents behind the opposition and secessionist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. This situation has the potential to fast track the emergence of a new Cold War.

The profound causal factors of the invasion are mainly three: historical claims to Ukraine, conscious disregard for sanctity of agreements, and conflict between two democratic principles (right of self-determination versus the right of secession). As regards claims to Ukraine, it is made clear in the 65-minute speech made shortly before the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as independent sovereign states of People’s Republic of Donetsk and People’s Republic of Luhansk by Russian President Vladimir Putin last week Monday, February 20, that contemporary Ukraine was ab initio entirely created by Bolshevik Russia. On this basis, President Putin accused the Ukrainian authorities of carrying out genocide against four million Russophones in Ukraine.

In the thinking of Russia, Ukraine should not be used by any foreign country against the people of Russia. It is within this context that the Russian opposition to Ukraine’s intended membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) should be understood as another profound causal factor of the invasion. Ukraine desires to accede to the NATO agreement, but contrarily to the wishes of Russia which thinks that the nearness of NATO to its international borders cannot but constitute a major threat to its national security survival.

Ukraine holds a different viewpoint, and strongly believes rightly or wrongly that, as an independent sovereign state, it necessarily has the right of self-determination, and the right to determine its own destiny. In other words, whether to belong to the NATO, whether to be associated with Russia cannot but be its own exclusive responsibility. Most unfortunately, however, this right to self-determination appears to have been myopically applied by seeking partisanship with the NATO while neglecting the regional implications for the neighbours of Ukraine.

The other rationale for the Russian invasion is the conscious disregard for sanctity of agreements, and conflict between two democratic principles (right of self-determination versus the right of secession). Russia was made to understand that NATO influence will not be allowed to extend to the newly established sovereign states that were created following the dismantlement of the former Soviet Union. James Baker, the US Secretary of State is on record to have told Mikhail Gorbachev that ‘la jurisdiction militaire actuelle de l’OTAN ne s’étendra pas d’un pouce vers l’est.’ Gorbachev was specifically assured of this in expectation of his acceptance of the then proposed integration of a unified Germany into the NATO system.

More important, there was also the 1993 President Bill Clinton proposal which has been to no avail. President Clinton proposed a new international structure, which was called ‘Partnership for Peace’ for the purposes of ensuring European security without the involvement of the NATO. But contrary to the spirit of this ‘Partnership for Peace’, many countries, as from 1997, were invited to join the NATO: Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia Republic etc were invited in 1997 and they joined the NATO in 1999.

What is noteworthy in this case is that Mikhail Gorbachev and Russian president, Eltsine Boris, facilitated the dismantlement of the USSR in the expectation that Russia would not only be integrated into the European security network in the long run, but also that the United States would likely take advantage of the openness of the Soviet Union to the world to expand NATO’s membership, thus implying the need for caution.

Without doubt, Ukraine is one of the new constellations of States and has nuclear capacity and capability based on its former association with the former Soviet Union, one major reason for Russia’s non-preparedness to allow Ukraine to join the NATO. However, the NATO is on record to have admitted some of the new countries to membership of the NATO contrary to the agreement reached with Russia.

While the US-led NATO countries have infringed on the agreement, Russia has not done any better. The Russian case is more irritating than that of the NATO. In 2014 for instance, Russia annexed Crimea contrary to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which provides for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Annexation of Crimea and supporting and giving recognition to the secession of Donetsk and Luhansk is necessarily militating against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Consequently, Russia is as guilty, if not more than, as the NATO countries.

Beyond Revellers and Travellers Afield

Mediators of the Russian-Ukrainian imbroglio are revelling and travelling afield. As many stakeholders are against aggression and invasion, many cannot but also revel because of the opportunity provided to test new weapons and sell them. Come to think of it seriously, if there is no market for new weapons how would the weapon manufacturers survive? Crises and conflicts are also part of human life and will continue to exist for as long as there will be human beings. Consequently, light arms, ammunitions, heavy weapons etc, cannot but remain a desideratum. But there will still be need to go beyond revelling for humanity’s sake.

Explained differently, the Russian and Ukrainian saga can provoke a global war if care is not taken. In terms of power comparison and future scenarios of the invasion, an escalation should be expected because Russia believes it has been unnecessarily pushed to the wall and is therefore prepared for the worst scenarios. In reaction, the NATO countries have only succeeded in pushing Ukraine to intransigence, without any indication of wanting to send troops to Ukraine to assist. They only are interested in taking sanctionary measures and providing some weapons, which we all know cannot influence Russia. Ukraine does not have the military might of Russia. And true enough too, the extent to which the EU can harass Russia militarily is also very limited.

In this regard, there is no disputing the fact that Russia as of May 2021 has the highest number of nuclear weapons with 6,257 warheads. The United States is placed second with 5,550 warheads, meaning that Russia had 707 warheads more than the United States. China is placed third with only 350 warheads and France in the fourth place with 290 warheads. With United Kingdom’s 225, Pakistan’s 165, India’s 160, Israel’s 90 and North Korea’s 45, the total warheads deployed, stockpiled, retired, or awaiting disarmament, the world is playing host to a total of 13,100 warheads.

If we consider the figures within the context of a new East-West Cold War that is in the making, it can be expected that the nuclear weapons states will be divided into pro-NATO and pro-Russia groups. The NATO alliance group will naturally include the United Kingdom and France. Into this alliance can also be added Israel. The position of India and Pakistan may be defined by non-alignment policy. Consequently, the total warheads of the United States, France and the United Kingdom will be 5,550, plus 225 (UK) plus France’s 290 amounting to 6,065 which is still less than what Russia possesses. Even when Israel’s’ 90 warheads are added, the total warheads will be 6,155 and still less than Russia’s 6,257 warheads.

More significantly, the People’s Republic of China is currently supporting Russia and can be rightly expected to lend nuclear support in the event of need. This means that the addition of China’s 350 warheads will further increase the number of warheads available to Russia to 6,607. Even though many are the other areas in which Russia has advantages over the United States and vice versa, the critical issue is that the United States and the other NATO countries are not readily available to fight side by side with the Ukrainians. Whereas Russian troops are directly engaged in the battle and the war.

A second issue of note is articulation of how Africa will be affected by the Russian-Ukrainian saga. Should Africa be involved in wars that are always generated in Europe? In many ways, Africa has not always been given any fair treatment in terms of access to, and allocation of, global resources. The developed world preaches the gospel of democratization. In fact, France led the West in making democracy a condition sine qua non for development aid at the Franco-African summit held in La Baule, France.

However, the same gospelers of democracy do not want democracy at play at the United Nations. The right of veto is necessarily a negation of sovereign equality. The reform of the UN Security Council has been stalled largely because of who should be permanent members and who should have veto right or not. At both the Addis Ababa and the Ezulwini summits of the AU, the issue of veto sharply divided the organization. The United States is much interested in having Japan and Germany for reasons of funding UN projects. The US wants Egypt to have one of the two seats earmarked for Africa, and by implication, leaving Nigeria and South Africa to contest for the other seat. The outcome of the dirty game is that the consensus required in Articles 108 and 109 in the UN Charter has remained a dream, yet Africa is being taught lessons of democracy.

What about the issue of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? It should be recalled that when negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation began in 1963, China and France were vehemently opposed. They did not want to hear about non-proliferation. Pakistan had the same attitudinal disposition. But when China and France successfully completed their nuclear tests, they joyfully came back to accept the treaty in 1968. The Treaty was done on July 1 and entered into force on 5 March 1970.

What is noteworthy about the Treaty is that the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation which succeeded the Soviet Union, were the depositories of the Treaty. The existing Nuclear Weapons States constituted themselves into a nuclear club membership of which is not open to new interested members. This situation has compelled non-compliance by countries seeking to acquire the nuclear status with the non-proliferation treaty. Israel and North Korea acquired their nuclear status without due regard to the Treaty. In fact, China and France were later accommodated by force of necessity. New members were unwanted in the erroneous belief that they would mishandle nuclear weapons in the event of accidents and that they cannot be trusted.

And perhaps most unfortunately, the double standard of the leading countries of the world cannot be helpful to the maintenance of international peace and security. When the direct national interests of the powerful countries are affected, there is nothing like democracy and human rights. They give convenient names to describe threats to global peace and security. When Africans were fighting apartheid, Ronald Reagan said the liberation movements were terrorists and wanted a constructive engagement approach to the problem. Africans rejected that approach, arguing that the anti-apartheid fighters were liberators. The ongoing conflict is a clear manifestation of an act of aggression, but the powerful countries call it an invasion. There cannot be international peace and security with policies of double standard and frolicking around with holier than thou attitude.

The essence of the foregoing is to underscore the point of unfairness and injustice which has become a major dynamic of insecurity and mésentente in international governance. Africa, particularly the ECOWAS region of West Africa may be the next theatre of the new East-West Cold War for one main reason. The stakeholders in the Russian-Ukrainian imbroglio are majorly the nuclear and veto wielding powers of the developed world. France which has been holding fort for the NATO in Africa has been gradually withdrawing its troops from Africa, not necessarily by choice by a manu militari decision of some Francophone countries. Mali, for example, believes that France has outlived her usefulness in the Sahelian region, that France has not been able to contain jihadist terrorism in the region, and has therefore invited Russian mercenaries to replace the French. The vacuum created by the French departure is being filled by Russians. Thus, in the foreseeable future Russianisation of West Africa cannot be ruled out, and for Africa, and particularly Nigeria that does not always have policies of preventive containment of threats to national and continental security, lessons should be drawn from what is currently going on Ukraine.