What we have witnessed in the public discourse building up to the events in Ukraine does not augur well for creating intelligent and nuanced understanding of global affairs.
The single, unsophisticated and wholly unbalanced narrative we have been receiving from Western leaders and the leading global news outlets is not conducive to resolving global challenges.
To the contrary, such brazen and self-serving intellectual ineptitude inflames conflicts. We need to create and embrace new knowledge and innovative frameworks that prevent wars and human strife globally. The future of diplomacy must be reimagined and reinvented.
For a start, the mainstream discourse on Ukraine is ahistorical. It is decontextualised. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, the superpower at the centre of the Warsaw Pact — an Eastern military alliance established in opposition to Nato, a Western military alliance. This was the configuration that constituted the military arithmetic of the Cold War.
Between 1989 and 1992, the Warsaw Pact collapsed, and the Soviet Union disintegrated with the Soviet republics becoming independent nations such as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Estonia and Belarus.
Russia remained a superpower, having inherited the bulk of the Soviet military and industrial strength, particularly a potent nuclear arsenal.
In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined Nato, with fierce Russian opposition to the move. Another Nato expansion came with the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Russia felt encircled by its former Nato adversaries. Clearly, given the history of the Cold War, Russia's security concerns are understandable.
A particularly mischievous ambition of the Western alliance was to control the Black Sea fleet, thus completely undermining Russia. Putin stopped that adventure by annexing Crimea.
The ill-conceived expansion of Nato into areas of previous Soviet influence was done in bad faith and in disgraceful violation of an understanding struck between Nato and the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War: that Nato would welcome the independence of the former Soviet states and satellite states but not expand the military alliance into these territories.
In the context of the recent history of the Cold War, Russian demands that Ukraine must remain independent but should not join Nato are not entirely unreasonable. Ukraine has a nearly 2,000km border with Russia, and its joining Nato would lead to the encirclement of Russia by its current and historical opponents.
The posturing by Nato members that Ukraine is free to join since it is a sovereign nation is at best naïve if not an outright manifestation of primitive ignorance. Sovereignty is not absolute.
If today France was to exercise its sovereign right, pull out of the EU and Nato, and join a military alliance with Russia or China, would the US and Nato fold their arms and respect France's sovereignty? Would Western Europe accept a member of a hostile military alliance right at the centre of Europe?
It does not make geopolitical, strategic or military sense, nor foster global peace and security, to have Ukraine as a member of Nato.
Such a scenario presents a patently obvious threat to Russian national security. In fact, by invading Ukraine now, Putin is being pre-emptive.
While asserting their sovereignty and remaining an independent nation, the people of Ukraine and their leaders must commit to NOT joining Nato. Realpolitik demands this.
Having Ukraine as a member of Nato would present a patently obvious threat to Russian national security. In fact, by invading Ukraine now, Putin is being pre-emptive
Finland is an example of what Ukraine should do. Finland is fiercely unapologetic about its independence and works closely with Western countries. However, it is not a member of Nato and strategically avoids any confrontation or disagreeable conduct with the Russians.
The distinguished former US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, eloquently supports this view: “Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe. [However] Ukraine should not join Nato ... Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people.”
Ukraine can never be just another foreign independent country to Russia, given the historical relationship between the two nations.
It has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories are inextricably linked with large pockets of Russian-speaking folks in Ukraine in the year 2022. This objective reality must inform Western intellectuals, pundits, and leaders.
Now, what of Western diplomacy with respect to the crisis unfolding in Ukraine? The stance of Nato and Western leaders has been that: “If Russia invades Ukraine, there will be no military response from us. We will impose ‘crippling’ sanctions against Russia.”
What a miserably pathetic position! In fact, it is encouragement or an invitation for an invasion! For a start, what is the basis of the assumption that the sanctions will be crippling?
The Russian economy is relatively robust and largely independent of the West, with the foundation of that independence in the Cold War, after which Russia inherited a vast military-industrial complex that is still ostensibly intact.
The so-called sanctions are to be imposed by only the US and a few of its Western allies. Really?
Surely, these measly Nato threats have not been thought through. How does one stop a leader, and his country, bent on invading a country by threatening to impose ineffectual sanctions? Are those measures not a small price to pay for the big prize?
We do not want war. We should do all we can to avoid war. Unfortunately, given the failure by Western leaders to understand and resolve Russia’s concerns and the pitiful folly of their empty and ineffectual threats, the invasion of Ukraine on February 24 was inevitable.
We must create a new body of knowledge that will determine the future of diplomacy — foreign policy positions that prevent or effectively manage conflict and not enable wars.
• A former deputy prime minister of Zimbabwe, professor Mutambara is director of the Institute for the Future of Knowledge at the University of Johannesburg. He writes in his personal capacity
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.