Russia v Ukraine: Nuts,Boults and Consequences

In the last few weeks, the world experienced it’s closest to a world war in recent times, with the sudden invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the debate as to whether Russia would unleash its nuclear power during the hostilities which could have far reaching effects. What started as a seemingly minor dispute between two former Eastern Bloc countries, is gradually escalating into a major war, which has put the world on Red Alert with potentially disastrous consequences, including a major humanitarian crisis. Tolu Aderemi, Gboyega Okunniga and Felix Sugabs examine the complex issues from diverse perspectives, including how the crisis can be beneficial to Nigeria, if Government is able to take advantage of the opportunities open to it Bolts and Consequences
The Price of War: Unpacking the Russian-Ukrainian Crisis

Tolu Aderemi

We are living through a somber moment in modern history. In February 2022, Russia deployed its military into two regions of eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian separatists. The last eight years have seen Russia wage a protracted battle with its smaller neighbour, since its annexation of Crimea. The invasion of Ukraine, a less powerful neighbour, will further devastate the latter’s already weakened infrastructure. Today, the U.N. Human Rights office notes that about 227 civilians have been killed, and another 525 injured. Ukrainian officials put the civilian death toll at over 2,000, including 21 children and the number is increasing. The International Criminal Court has also begun investigation, into alleged war crimes.

In 1991, Ukraine declared itself an independent country following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Sequel to this, Ukraine incrementally formed closer ties with the European Union, and with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). This move was viewed by Russia, as an economic and strategic threat to it (Russia). Consequently, Russia demanded that NATO must stop its eastward expansion and deny membership to Ukraine, an independent country of over three decades. This is in addition to its demand that NATO roll back troop deployment; a move that would turn back the clock on decades of Europe’s security and geopolitical alignment. The United States of America and NATO, rejected these demands.

Economic Consequences

The Russia-Ukraine crisis jeopardises about one million barrels of crude oil supplies (b/d), that transit through Ukraine and the Black Sea. Whilst this is significant, the long-term disruptions could be far more significant as oil prices could surge to around $130 per barrel, with end users feeling the pain at the petrol stations, as well as in their power/electricity bills. The reality is that significantly higher crude oil prices are on the horizon in Europe and across the world, and Nigeria is not insulated.

One then wonders what the impact of the 60% vote at the General Assembly of the United Nations on March 2, 2022, or indeed, global reactions (by way of sanctions) to the invasion of Ukraine, is. Will these have any energy security consequences? Many have wondered. The truth is that, it is unlikely that Russia will experience an absolute halt to its gas supplies. However, gas piped through Ukraine, which represents about 8% of European supplies, will most likely be at risk. Russian gas accounts for over 30% of European demand, and it is unlikely that other sources (for example, Nigeria etc) are adequately prepared to bridge the gap. The suspension of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline by Germany, has increased the pressure on the Continent to replace those volumes from other sources.

It is unequivocally clear that, sanctions notwithstanding, the world needs Russia’s oil, gas, coal metals, petrochemicals and fertiliser. It will be impulsive and unthinkable to place sanctions on these commodities as the world may appear to be doing, as there are no quick fixes to replace this supply window. An arrogant insistence on these sanctions are far-reaching, as Russia supplies about 17% of gas output and 13% of oil production globally. It is therefore a major world market economy, with significant trading interests in raw materials, gas, and oil; the world’s third-largest oil producer and second-largest producer of natural gas, ranking among the top energy suppliers to the United States of America and China, the world’s top two economies.

Global Economic Impact of the Sanctions

Since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, the world has placed the following sanctions on Russia, inter alia:
a. The USA issued an executive order that placed severe restrictions on trade with the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

b. The USA imposed sanctions against VEB and the Russian Military Bank PSB, unarguably, two big Russian banks.
c. Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, halted the certification of the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline, which would have doubled the flow of Russian gas to Germany.

d. The United Kingdom imposed sanctions targeting five Russian banks and three billionaire Oligarchs.
e. The U.S.A., the United Kingdom, Canada, and the European Commission further removed some Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, which about 11,000 global financial institutions would normally deploy to send secure messages about financial transactions
f. The Russian Central Bank’ was also restricted from accessing most of its reserves – $643 billion in foreign currency.

g. FIFA suspended the Russian national team from participating in the 2022 World Cup, and all international competitions.

As the economic war rages, oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel, for the first time since 2014. Brent crude jumped 7.3% to $103.9 a barrel. It is expected that oil prices will continue to rise, causing major disruptions to global energy supply. It is most likely that prices will surge between $150-$170 per barrel, once the world fully takes in the implications of Russia’s costly war. Rising oil prices, during a pandemic recovery no less, with its domino effect on commodities, is predicted to reduce global economic growth by more than three quarters to less than 1% in the first half of 2022.

Nigeria

The Ukraine-Russian war notwithstanding, there are huge economic advantages and disadvantages to oil and gas producing emerging economies. The revenues to oil producing countries may temporarily surge by the rising prices, and member States in these countries (in the case of Nigeria, the 36 States) will distribute increased share of their monthly ‘income’. However, unless professionally guided by economic experts, Nigeria may find itself in a quagmire which will lead to a crisis of supply, increased demand, and arbitrary increment in prices of petroleum products. Government might find itself increasing its portfolio of subsidy payments, and the country may witness increased illegitimate importation of petrol motor spirit (PMS).

The macroeconomics and heightened demand on infrastructure notwithstanding, Nigeria must strategically position itself for the benefit/consequences of this crisis. For instance, an economy like Nigeria must have a price range of between $70-$80 to create sustainability in meeting its production quota, and break loose from the shackles of subsidy payments. According to the World Bank, Nigeria spent up to N1.03 trillion on subsidies in 2021, and could end up spending N2.5 trillion or N3 trillion in subsidising Petrol in 2022.

Nigeria must position itself to take the benefit of the current crisis, by aggressively exploring its gas potentials. Nigeria holds over 206 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves, ranking 9th in the world, accounting for about 3% of the world’s total natural gas reserves of 6,923 Tcf. With a projected growth rate of over 70% by 2025, Nigeria has proven to have the potential of being a major player in the global natural gas market. In 2017, the Nigerian Government formulated the Nigerian Gas Policy, with the intention to boost gas penetration and utilisation in the country. This policy promotes the construction of gas processing facilities and infrastructure that accelerate the reduction of domestic dependence on crude oil and other refined products through technological innovations, as it seeks to provide an alternative energy source for its populace.

The Policy since its inception has recorded remarkable success stories that portrays prospects of a sustainable energy future. The eventual enactment of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, has also made more realistic the goal of focusing on gas as a standalone commodity. The NLNG Train 7 project, which is projected to increase gas production capacity by 35% from the current 22 million Tonnes Per Annum (mtpa) to 30mtpa when completed and operational, is one of the flagship projects of this policy. The Train 7 project is an exciting new expansion of Nigeria LNG’s existing plant, which currently has six operational trains. Ditto for the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano (AKK) pipeline project, a 614km-long natural gas pipeline currently being developed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The AKK pipeline is envisaged as the first part of the Trans Nigeria Gas Pipeline Project to transport gas through Algeria or Morocco to Europe. These are flagship projects that experts in the sector (including petroleum economists), should confer with the Government on how to enhance Nigeria’s beneficial interest in them.  

The next few days, weeks and months are critical for Nigeria and indeed, other producing economies as alliances against the Kremlin solidify. This modern-day tale of David and Goliath, has already made heroes and martyrs of the Ukrainian people who have resisted the Russians at pains of life and limb. Their President, should he survive this trial of a lifetime, will surely have his name etched in the sands of time. However, Nigeria must not lose sight of commercial opportunities arising from this crisis, even as stakeholders seek a diplomatic resolution to address the growing conflict.

Tolu Aderemi, Visiting Professor, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti; a John Taylor Scholar of the University of Aberdeen; Partner and Head, Energy Section, Perchstone and Graeys Law Firm

Between the Ukrainians, Russians and the ‘Gangs of New York’

Gboyega Okunniga

Introduction

Martin Scorsese’s 2002 hit, “Gangs of New York” aptly illustrates the unfolding events in Ukraine and, also, characterised the dramatis personae in a conflict dubbed by Germany’s Olaf Scholz as “ Putin’s war”. Based on a true situation and mostly true characters, the “Gang of New York” depicts New York City of the American civil war era when rival gangs, with little or no regard for law and order, ruled the roost. The grisly and horrendous situation in Ukraine gives one a chilling and quite a nostalgic imagery of how our modern-day Gangs of New York rule the roost today. In a true sense, Russia, USA, UK, France and China – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – represent the leaders of today’s Gangs of New York; who have, over the decades, systematically, evolved a new world order that gives international law an appearance of being upheld whilst in, actual sense, it is being violated and trampled upon.

This write-up interrogates the invasion of Ukraine and issues surrounding Russia’s defence of its use of force under international law; consequences of violating international law, and whether international law is of any consequence, in any event. The write-up also addresses the contribution of other UN Security Council members and NATO to the Ukraine impasse, and what Nigeria should do in this situation.

Principle of Prohibition Against the Use of Force

Firstly, the use of force by one country against the territory of another State has been prohibited in international relations since the enactment of the United Nations Charter, 1945. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of military force against another State stating:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The principle in Article 2(4) is regarded as the peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) by many authors, and this principle has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Hague which established the principle that aiding a rebel group in a foreign country is prohibited. These prohibitions, argued Professor Malcolm Langford and Professor Emeritus Geir Ulfstein, both of Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, had already been violated by Russia through its annexation of Crimea and its supply of military assistance to rebels in Luhansk and Donetsk before the recent invasion of Ukraine.

Given the express provision of Article 2(4) of the Charter, it would appear to be settled that Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was/ and continues to be a violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Exceptions to the Prohibition

However, the Charter, equally, provides for exceptions to these prohibitions – these include: self-defence, enforcement action under Chapter VII and enforcement action by regional arrangement under Chapter VIII.

Putin’s Argument

Putin has put forward some reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine. Having regard to the exceptions permitted under the UN Charter, it is only fair to consider these reasons to see whether there is (are) merit in Putin’s argument. Putin’s primary argument was that NATO had broken its promise, not to expand eastwards. He argued that NATO’s enlisting of nations on Russia’s borders, especially Ukraine, represents a provocation; although, NATO insists that it’s not a threat to Russia. In other words, Putin’s argument is chiefly that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a necessary act of self-defence against NATO’s expansion, which constitutes a threat to Russia’s security.
It’s difficult to see any merit in this argument, because in international law, a State’s right of self-determination also includes the country’s right to choose its own alliances. It is doubtful, whether such right to preventive self-defence is recognised in international law. However, it’s important to consider whether Putin’s pre-emptive military action against Ukraine can come within the self-defence exception, under the 1945 Charter. Article 51 of the Charter which provides in part:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”.

It appears clear from Article 51 that the use of “inherent” recognises that the Charter does not intend to create a right to self-defence; but to ensure that self-defence is only applied to situations where the country is defending itself against an aggressor. It is not in doubt that, Russia, itself is the aggressor in this case; therefore, Russia cannot invoke the right of self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter as a defence against NATO’s expansion.

Notwithstanding the wordings of Article 51, some scholars are of the opinion that Article 51 does not limit the right of self-defence under customary international law, as the right pre-dates the Charter. Can it then be argued that Russia’s right to anticipatory self-defence under customary international law, is an unqualified right that gives Russia the positive obligation to invade Ukraine? Assuming that Russia can invoke the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence in this case; Russia would still have been in breach, because both the doctrine and Charter allow force only if there is “no choice of means”. Accordingly, there appears to be no merit in Russia’s justifications under Article 51.

America’s National Security Doctrine/Invasion of Iraq

Nevertheless, Russia has argued that the same consideration was applied by the United States and NATO to justify their second invasion of Iraq in 2003, pursuant to the Bush administration’s doctrine known as National Security Doctrine, which appears to be the US self-styled expansion of the scope of anticipatory self-defence. The doctrine has, however, been held to be incompatible with the Charter and customary international law.
The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution, authorising the use of force by member States and thus, constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva. The application of the doctrine to the US and NATO’s military interventions in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria have also been held to be either illegal or of dubious legality under international law.

Matter of fact, as far back as 1946, the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg rejected the Defendants’ arguments that Germany was entitled to attack Norway to forestall an Allied invasion, finding that no such invasion was imminent. United States v Goering, 6 F.R.D. 69, 100-01 (1946). It has even been argued by defenders of anticipatory self-defence that the 1981 Israeli air strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, was a justifiable example of anticipatory self-defence. The Israeli action was utterly condemned by the Security Council as a violation of the Charter and of the “norms of international conduct”. S.C. Res. 487.
It is, therefore, settled that the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence is an unrecognisable principle in international law, and incompatible with the Charter.

In the light of the above, Putin’s justification of the invasion on the ground that the US and NATO have been practically violating the same UN Charter, is not sound: one crime does not excuse the next. In any event, Putin cannot justify his invasion on the ground that, others have done the same and got away without any consequence. To this end, the author of ‘Afghanistan a legitimate military intervention?’ “(Le Collectif ÉCHEC à la GUERRE) submits:

“International law must be clearly distinguished from the use of force for revenge or punishment; States, like persons, must not act as vigilantes. Second, in criminal law, self-defence may be invoked in the face of an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. In general, the threat must be immediate and the response must not be pushed beyond what is reasonably required to repel that threat. Therefore, in general, self-defence may not be invoked to justify physical retaliation to an attack a few weeks after it occurs”.

Consequences for Violating Rules of International Law

Nonetheless, past events have shown that Russia will continue to exploit the West’s dubious use of military force in several parts of the world, to justify its violation of international law. What then are the consequences for violating these fundamental rules of international law? And is international law of any consequence at all?
The UN Security Council can pass resolutions condemning Russia, or adopt various forms of economic and military sanctions. However, the Security Council itself, remains subject to veto power by Russia – the very person violating the rules. An alternative recourse is the International Court of Justice; however, its rulings are only enforceable against States that have accepted, or would accept its jurisdiction.

Having regard to the apparent weakness of the United Nations and its inability to properly sanction Russia, or curtail the violation of its laws by any member of the Security council who is prone to disregard its rule in favour of their own national policies; what then does this melancholic outcome portend for Ukraine, Nigeria, and the rest of the world? For practical purposes, Ukraine must realise that so long as Russia remains a member of the UN Security Council, it can always block any resolution that is not in its favour. Ukraine must therefore, seek as a matter of survival, to find a way to accommodate Russia’s security concerns, even though, unfounded in international law.

Nigeria

On the other hand, although, Nigeria is not an immediate security threat to Russia, however, given the Ukrainian experience, Nigeria must now move to re-assert itself as a regional power by forming stronger economic and military bound with its West African neighbours. Moreover, given the economic relationship with China, the European Union, United Kingdom and the US, its high time Nigeria explored military cooperation with its trading partners to boost its security, and possibly, eradicate Boko Haram without joining any of the gangs. Nigeria must, also endeavour to reposition itself by making the West African sub-region the centre of its foreign policies. Nigeria’s population and economic sphere is irrelevant, if it can’t get to lead one of the gangs of New York at the UN Security Council roundtable.

Conclusion

The Gangs of New York are here to stay. The gangs are not that thick to blow up one another into smithereens with their atomic toys, but will continue to use other nations as pawns to settle their ego trips. It is high time the smaller countries started clubbing together as powerful economic and defence hubs, to contain the excesses of these Gangs who they can’t, clearly, do without.
Gboyega Okunniga, Independent Legal Professional, Coventry, United Kingdom

Russian/Ukrainian Crisis: Is America the Aggressor?

Felix Sugaba

As the war ranges in Ukraine, America and the western media is shaping the narrative. CNN and co would have us believe that Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation. Not true. They tell us that Russia wants to revive its lost empire. Not true. They tell us that Russia is violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. This may be true, but they would not tell you why. Going by antecedents, America is very smart at padding and garnishing its interests with double standards and state sponsored lies.

America, NATO and Allies

It is important to start with an understanding of the underlining issues.

The two ideologues of the Cold-War were teleguided by military coalitions, the Warsaw Pact which was a coalition of Russia and its Eastern European allies and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NATO which was and remains a coalition of America and its West European allies.

It is noteworthy that, the Warsaw Pact dissolved with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In contrast, NATO held on. Why was it necessary for NATO to forge on despite the changing circumstances? The answer is found in the very essence of the organisation. NATO is not just a military alliance; it is also a political and economic alliance, whose members are obligated to one another.

The aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, witnessed America declaring itself the only superpower of the world. It crowned itself the Police and Prefect of the world, to the chagrin of Russia who, to date, still reels from the failure of its ideology and the crumbling of the Soviet Empire. This unbridled arrogance of power and quest for permanent dominance in world affairs, have been the source of destabilisation in many countries around the world. It defines America’s bilateral and multilateral relations all over the globe. It is at the centre of its grouse with Russia, and by extension, China.

If America won the cold war, it was neither magnanimous in victory nor humbling in attitude. What is unfolding in Ukraine, is unarguably a theme from America’s hunger for hegemony, its quest for dominance that knows no bound. This stance was emphatically espoused to the world, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. In the words of former President Bush, “It is either you are with us, or you are against us”.

As soon as the Cold War ended, America and its NATO allies embarked on a program of expansion, that was clearly designed to humiliate Russia. The aim was to hurriedly enlist former members of the Warsaw Pact, create military bases all around Russia, thereby ensuring that the Soviet Empire was completely buried in the annals of history, while its remnant Russia was well contained. The first point of call on former members of the Warsaw Pact, was Poland in 1999. Other countries like Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania etc. of the old Soviet Union, have since joined NATO.

Russia/Ukrainian Issues

Russia, on its part, has its political and economic interest to protect and defend. If Russia allowed other former USSR entities to join NATO, Ukraine stood exempted. Apart from crude oil, Russia supplies to Europe 38% of its gas need. Much of the gas is piped through Ukraine and Belarus. Russia is afraid that if Ukraine falls into the hands of America through the instrumentality of NATO, it could take over the control of the pipeline. It is this fear that prompted Russia to embark on the gigantic resource gulping project, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines that run through the Baltic sea to Germany. The project was designed to conveniently bypass Ukraine, who had been aiming to join NATO

Ukraine does not only have the longest border with Russia, it is ethnically, religiously and historically interwoven with Russia. This point was recently hammered upon by Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State. His interview which has been quoted in several articles, shed much light on the discourse. The man famed as the architect of Shuttle Diplomacy, admonished thus, “The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country”. Reminding us of the historical and spiritual ties between the two countries, he said, “Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then”.

It is apparent that, this history fact is lost on America and President Biden.

Not a few scholars have spoken up against the expansion of NATO into parts of the former Soviet Union. Specifically, on Ukraine, many scholars warned repeatedly about the danger of co-opting the country into NATO. One of such scholars was John Mearsheimer, who in 2015 prophetically warned that, “the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked”.
The economic dimension of NATO, is rarely talked about. It is open knowledge that, the Alliance has no gun nor bullet of its own.

NATO members are obliged to build their forces and equipment for the Alliance’s goal of joint security and defence. To meet this objective, European members have an agreed spending target of at least 2% of their GDP on defence budget. Here is the catch. Over 80% of the armament are purchased directly from American manufacturers. Besides, America controls and ensures that such armament meets with NATO standard, and the purchase complies with due process. When America breaths down the throat of other NATO countries to up their defence budget, it is simply a euphemism for marketing America’s military wares.

Those who opine that Ukraine is a sovereign country that should not have been invaded by Russia, are missing the point. Sovereignty is not absolute. It is subjective to the security of other countries. Was Cuba not a sovereign country, when America boldly requested USSR to remove her missiles from the country? Indeed, it is not surprising that America and its allies lay emphasis on the sovereignty of Ukraine in their talking points. Western media, the megaphone of American imperialism, is doubling down on the fake narrative. On television, we are inundated with images of refugees flowing across the borders. Figures of casualties are being churned out repeatedly, to provoke our repulsion for President Putin. CNN went to the ridiculous extent of casting him in an insane mood. There is hardly any western media, that attempts to bring the truth home to roost

America’s Hegemony

At the centre of its grouse with Russia as with China, is America’s desire to dominate the world. America sees the rise of China, as a threat to that dominance. China is considered an adversary by America, simply because of China’s ever growing economic and military might. There is hardly any propaganda America has not put up, to discredit China. From branding its goods as fake products, denouncing China’s presence in Africa, to pressuring countries not to adopt its 5G technology, America’s “war” of dominance and influence is daring, unpretentious, vociferous and monstrous.

If China appears “lucky”, same cannot be said of Latin/South American countries, where countries like Venezuela are reeling in ruins that were orchestrated by America. African countries have had their own baptism of bully and destructive tentacles of America. In Nigeria for instance, the Ajaokuta Steel Rolling Mill constructed by Russia under the Shagari administration remains moribund over four decades after construction, thanks to the machinations of America whose companies lost out during the bidding process.

America and Hypocrisy

It is bewildering that America seeks to change the narrative, only a few days into the Ukraine war. How hypocritical can a country be? The same America who threatened war with USSR over the latter’s deployment of missiles in Cuba in 1962, does not find it insulting and threatening to plant military bases in countries that share borders with Russia.

This hypocrisy was laid bare by Senator Bernie Sanders a few days ago when he said, “it is hypocritical for the US to insist that we as a nation do not accept the principle of spheres of influence. For the last two hundred years, our country has operated under the Monroe Doctrine”. This Doctrine, according to him, allows the US to “intervene against any country that might threaten our interest”. He therefore, wondered why Russia is being denied exercising same sphere of influence over Ukraine, when “under this doctrine, the US has undermined and overthrown at least a dozen countries throughout Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean”. Africa was not left out.

This shameless display of hypocrisy was re-enacted a few days ago on Fox News by Condoleezza Rice, who was the US National Security Adviser under President Bush. She had the temerity, the audacity to speak against Russia over what she called “illegal action”. What she however, didn’t say, was what made US invasion of Iraq a legal action. What do we call US invasion of Panama in 1989? What about the overthrow of the President of Guatemala in 1954? Was Libya not a country when US bombed it in 1986?

Economic and Humanitarian Repercussions

As the war rages on, the repercussions are already being felt across the globe. In Europe, the price of gas has skyrocketed. Nord Stream 2 project has been put in abeyance. Oil price has shot beyond $110 per barrel, creating devastating impact on the world economy. Interest rates are being upped by various countries, while the stock markets are down.

The humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding brings home the reality of the situation. The flow of refugees to neighbouring countries, has generated sudden social-economic and political problems in varying dimensions that call for immediate solutions. The receiving countries are already overwhelmed, even as more are yet to come. The pressure it unleashes on these poor countries, may be too much for them to bear. Already, we are hearing news of how black Africans are refused entry by authorities of other countries.

The impact is also on African countries, who had to deploy scarce resources to evacuate their nationals.
The Federal Government of Nigeria, just approved US$8.5m to evacuate Nigerians from the war zone. Other African countries are following suit, with their meagre resources. The toll on over 76,000 international students enrolled in various Universities in Ukraine is better imagined, as time spent and resources expended on their learning seem heading down the drain. Maybe the time has come for these governments to examine why so many of their citizens troop to Ukraine, to acquire education.

Europe and Transatlantic Relations

The Ukraine war appears set to unravel new geopolitics in Europe. Many European scholars have begun to question Europe’s blind allegiance to America. American dominance of European geopolitics, is now seriously being interrogated by those scholars.

The feeling that the war could have been averted were it not for the intransigence of America, is spreading and garnering sympathy. This is more so that Ukraine is in Europe. Europe has no more appetite for war, and its fallout. The last world wars were fought on the soil of Europe, not America. The face of unity that Europe puts up over this conflict, appears to be a façade. There are voices of discontent amongst members, who do not totally agree with American/NATO policy of expansion. France for one, is said to be more circumspect in the direction of NATO.
Such circumspection, if not well handled, can create cracks in the body of European Union, where already France and Germany hold divergent views about the future of Europe and wider world affairs. It is also an indication that the Transatlantic Relationship between America and Europe, is in troubling waters.

In an article published in LSE Journal in 2021, Jussi Hanhimaki argued that the “NATO alliance is experiencing a severe identity crises, prompted by internal squabbles and external circumstances”. According to him, questions about the organisation are accentuated by disparaging comments from leaders like Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron. The former repeatedly called the alliance obsolete, the latter, in 2019, referred to it as “brain dead”. He concluded that “Joe Biden’s mantra – America is back – has done little to reverse the inevitable decline of the West. If anything, NATO appears even more paralysed. It has collectively accepted – in practice if not as a policy, that post-Cold War enlargement has reached its geographical limit”.

Winners and Losers

It might be too early, to predict the outcome of this war. However, as in all wars, winners and losers shall emerge. As various scholars warned in the past, Ukraine seems to have embarked on a suicide mission. America will soon plunge into domestic political agenda in preparation for the mid-term elections, leaving Ukraine to lick its wounds. In the same vein, Europe cannot afford to jeopardise its interest for too long. Russia’s gas supply accounts for 38% of European need. To expect that Europe will act too harshly on Russia and for too long, is a mirage. Europeans are not known to have too much patience with their leaders. Sooner than later, it will dawn on Ukraine that domestic interests come first for European leaders.

As for President Biden, his tough guy posture is empty to say the least. Unfortunately, he is being egged on by the fifth columnists in his regime, who understand that no American President wins a second time in a war situation. His disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, dogs his presidency. To go this mile over Ukraine, is tragic to say the least. With this twin incidents, one needs no prophet to conclude that he has effectively and selfishly handed over the presidency to the Republicans come 2024.

Beyond US domestic politics, the aftermath of the war might witness a new economic and political realignment. The massive sanctions imposed on Russia may have unintended consequences on World economic order, that may greatly affect America. The removal of Russia from SWIFT for example, is an act taken too far. To think that alternatives cannot be worked out and put in place by Russia and its allies, is naïve. How does Europe pay for its gas purchase? One of the unfolding lessons to Russia and other spectator countries, is the risk of keeping foreign reserves in US Dollars. In this regard, what America fears most might eventually occur, that is, the emergence of other dominant currency for international trade.

In Summary

Unlike Kuwait, Ukraine has no oil deposits. Her main export is wheat. America wants to add Ukraine to her political and economic sphere of influence, in her quest to maintain her hegemony over the world. That the leaders of Ukraine could not read between the lines, is surprising. As the bombardment waxes on, the reality is beginning to dawn on Ukraine. It is without any doubt that Ukraine was deceived and coerced into submitting its infrastructure for destruction, and rendering its population for annihilation over NATO membership. Ukraine has nothing to gain by joining NATO. The most prosperous countries in Europe like Switzerland, are not members of NATO. It has nothing to fear from Russia, if it chooses to remain neutral. It would do well to renounce joining NATO, in order to end the war. Moreover, it is crystal clear that Russia would never succumb to Ukraine joining NATO. For Russia, it is a red line.

Felix Sugaba, Zurich, Switzerland