The Nemesis of the Ukraine- Russian War: Who are the Real Beneficiaries?

The Russian-Ukraine conflict mirrors an existential geo-political tension between western NATO states  seeking to encircle Russia in the Black Sea, on one hand; whilst, Russia on the other hand, strives to protect its security as enduring super power. In its December 2021 commentary, the International Global Crisis (IGC), opines that: “States compete fiercely even when they’re not fighting directly. They do battle with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, election interference, economic coercion, and by instrumentalizing migrants. Major and regional powers vie for influence, often through local allies, in war zones. Proxy fighting has not so far sparked direct confrontation among meddling states.” 

Introduction

Against that backdrop, it is plausible that the Russian-Ukraine conflict has been sold on some falsehoods throughout the western media  in Europe and America;  as  a keen strategy to numb critical and dissenting  voices relating to the pros and cons of the conflict. The consequence of this is profound; especially, the socio-economic hardships being visited upon majority of citizens in Ukraine and Russia. Similarly, populations in major European States particularly Britain and Gremany, are feeling the weight of the war through Russian’s retaliatory sanction by cutting off gas supply to Germany and other European countries. Coupled with the challenges of high energy bills and related economic struggles are brazen human miseries pervading millions of households across Europe. Given the dire human depravity characterising the conflict, the question being asked is: who are the real  beneficiaries of the war, and why is diplomacy relegated to the fringes at the expense of militarism?

Arguments for and against the Conflict

Several opposing arguments have been traded by academics, politicians and economists about the need to support Ukraine against Russia as a justification for promoting democracy and rule of law in the world. One proponent of the demcocratic argument is Alexander J. Motyl in a piece -titled “Who caused the Russia-Ukrainian war, NATO or Russia?- which was  published  in The HILL  (7 May 2022). The core of Motyl’s argument was that: “Muscovy has practiced imperialism since at least the 14th century; Peter the Great’s invention, the Russian Empire, continued in Muscovy’s footsteps. Two contributing reasons for this longstanding imperialism are Russia’s historical practice of dictatorship and its possession of a political culture that values aggressive behavior at home and abroad. Tyrants use expansion and aggression against foreigners as a means of legitimating their rule. Putin is no different in this regard from Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible. An imperialist political culture facilitates expansion and aggression by making it seem normal and desirable, part of Russia’s historical destiny.”. The view that Russia is a dictator and imperalist seeking expansion of territories is contestable in many respects. First, it is no secret that Russia has only 21 military bases which all are located in Syria and other Russian territories; whilst, the USA has military bases in 85 countries and terrioties with the Ramstein base in Germany holding the largest personnel of 9,200 respectively. Second, the UK also has over 145 militray installations located across 142  countries, with France possessing more than 3,000 troops spread across five countries in Africa; namely: Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad, consolidating its colonial dominance on the continent( Jeremy Bender; January 2015; Insider). This blogpost is not sympathetic towards nor apologetic of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, it beats any critical mind how the USA, UK and Frnace with the largest of military bases in foreign countries would accuse Russia as an imperalist power.

Conversely, Jeffery Sachs (Ukraine is the Latest Neocon Disaster, 27 June 2022:  OtherNews) shared a view on the Russia-Ukrain war,  stating that diplomacy rather than militarism, would have been a  key solution to ending the conlfict. He explains, thus: “The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons.  As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles.” From Sachs’ view point, the insatiable drive among the US and its NATO allies to gain geo-politocal advantage over Russia in the Black Sea through eastward expanisons, motivated Russia’s invasion and the ensuing conflict.

Similarly,  on 17 June 2022, at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies- European University Institute, Italy, John Mearsheimer also candidly makes the point that “Moscow was not interested in making Ukraine part of Russia, but in making sure it would not become a springboard from Western aggression; and that Russia could not feel safe, develop and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.” In international politics/relations, Mearsheimer’s view clearly represent Russia’s argument in opposong Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO. In the same vein, the US opposition to Russia’s installations in Cuba in the 1960’s (Cuban Missile Crisis- Abram Chayes) –  was premised on a  similar security issiue/ threat. There is a saying that a popular view is not always right,  however, within academic and media cricles across most major cities in Europe and America,  there is an entrehced strategy perpetually vilifying and demonishing Russia; while, few voices are advocating for diplomatic solutions to stemmimg the war. As stated earlier in the above, this blogpost does not seek to exonerate Russia nor the miliarisation of  Ukraine by the western powers; because, whatever the otcome of the conflict, those who stand to suffer gravely are the majority of citizens in Ukraine, Russia, and by extension those citizens residing in European states who are struggling to pay the high and exorbitant gas and electricity bills, coupled with escalated inflationary costs of living standard. Some examples point to this state of hardships facing the masses of peoples across Europe: Jack Barnett illusttrated in CITYAM.COM (13 September 2022: p 8) that: “Experts have the UK’s warning trade deficit will hit the pound due to the country having to go cap in hnad to foreign investors to borrow money to import goods and services”; The Guardian (12 September 2022, p. 25), also reported that “But as uncertain and costly winter approaches, governments are rolling back supports prgrammes, while many who are happy to host Ukranian family for a few weeks or momths, are now reaslising that the war could go on for years. More and more Ukrainian refugees are finding themselves struggling to make ends meet”; Natalia Kniazhevich, (Bloomberg- 20 September 2022), futher joined the debate to explain that “On top of that, negative supply shocks coming from the pandemic, Russia-Ukraine conflict and China’s zero Covid tolerance policy will bring higher costs and lower economic growth. This will make the Fed’s current “growth recession” goal — a protracted period of meager growth and rising unemployment to stem inflation — difficult”; and lastly, Coface for Trade (3 July 2022) professes that:  “While high commodity prices were one of the risks already identified as potentially disruptive to the recovery, the escalation of the conflict increases the likelihood that commodity prices will remain higher for much longer. In turn, it intensifies the threat of long-lasting high inflation, thereby increasing the risks of stagflation & social unrest in both advanced & emerging countries.” Although these examples are not exhaustive, it reflects the extent and magnitude of the crises which the conflict has imposed upon the world, particularly Russia, Ukraine as well as among some Euroepan states.

Beneficiaries of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

While the conflict is continually fomenting geo-political and soci-economic tensions within Russia-Ukraune enclaves, including parts of Europe, the real beneficiaries are not only the multinational corporations (MNCs), which produce and supply armaments to Ukraine; but also the politicians who act as sponsors of military strategies in extending the conlfict at the expense of diplomacy. Alexa Phillips of SkyNews-UK, (10 June 2022), in a report chronilced a list of companies that are benefitting financially from arms deals relatung to the ensuing war betweene Russia-Ukraine. By way of example, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin has received an order of 6,500 javelins from the US government at $78,000 ($66, 000) each, including $100, 000 (£85, 000) worth of relaunchers. Also, the US government has placed an order of  counter-artillery radar  system with the American firm,  Northrop Grumman, to be shipped to Ukraine in support its fight against Russia. Another arms contract awarded by the US government to Raytheon in support of UKraine against Russia are 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft missile launchers, priced at $625m ($494m).

On the European continent, Britain’s BAE Systems is the beneficiary of governmental arms contract where it has manufcatured more than 400, 000 rounds, including Stomer armoured vehicles, to replenish the UK’s ammunitions, while parts of them  are sent to prop Ukraine against Russia. In addition, Airbus and Leonardo were contracted to produce MILAN anti-tank guided missiles, which were  donated by France and Italy to Ukraine.  Thales, a French company,  had the advantage of manufacturing Starstreak anti aircraft missiles, most of which were mounted onto armoured cars  and shipped to Ukraine. Similarly, Thales produced majority of the shoulder-launched missile systems of which UK donated 5, 000 pieces valued at £30, 000 to Ukraine. Furthermore, Germany’s Dynamite Nobel is reputed to have manufactured 3,000 Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank weapons as well as 5,100 MATADOR anti-tank weapons. By illustrating the specific financial gains achieved by the afore-mentioned corporations associated with the Russia-Ukraine conflcit, Phillips categorised their  respective profit margins by stating that: “Large defence companies are already seeing their share prices go up as investors anticipate the impact of the war on profits. Thales shares have risen by 35% since the invasion, while BAE Systems shares are up 32%. Lockheed Martin has seen an increase of 14% and AeroVironment 63%.” Whilst the arms corporations have made substantial financial gains and continue to rake in related benefits from the conflct, majority of the citizens in Ukraine, Russia and especially cross European states are bearing the harshest brunt of socio-economic challenges; yet, savvy western media houses are relentlessly stoking the war without advocating the plight of the peoples nor diplmatic solution to end the conflict.

Concluding Remarks

Prior to the outbreak of the conflict in February, the EU relied on Russia for around 40 percent of its gas imports. The EU has since halved its dependence over the past six months amid sanctions on Russian energy supplies. The consequences of this are the projected high costs of energy and living standards in the US, UK, Germany, including major European states. This seemingly insatiable desire for war and its accompanied human miseries have in some respects been very damaging to the dignity of all peoples affected by it; and, consequently reflects the absence of substantve leadership on the European side. Orthodoxies of defending human rights, democractic governance and sovereiognty of states, proclaimed and espoused by the western powers should be abandoned for diplomacy and political solutions to the conflict.

Rather than using the choatic and human sufferings in the affected conflict zones to promote their self-seeking geo-political ambitions, the US and its allies (western powers) should recognised the eminence of multipolar world where respect for diplomacy and genuine discussions of altenative solutions are garnered to promote peace and harmony. This enatils respecting Russia’s security in the Black Sea.

While the conflict between Russia-Ukraine makes the US and wetern powers more visible on the international plane, it equally makes them accountable in that citizens in their respective states would soon probe and subject them to critical scrutiny to provide critical answers for supporting the war in the face of dire socio-economic challenges.

Whenever Russia pursues a foreign policy to protect its security interets, the US, NATO, European satetes inclduing the western Media regard it as world security crisis. However, where the US supported by its allies engage in similar expeditions, as in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq etc; they are branded as measures to defend human rights, human dignity and rule of law. This double standard augers only to deepen the fissures in the world political system and consequently exacerbate the plight of innocents citizen acrosss the world.