Fallouts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Political Observation - Fallouts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
The aims of America and Russia are no longer a secret over the Ukraine war. Putin, who realised that America had been luring him into military action by refusing to give Russia any guarantees to not arm Ukraine, retract her application for membership to NATO and the EU, and renounce any plans to deploy NATO weapons on her lands that would undermine Russian national security, wanted to carry out a blitzkrieg to either topple the government of Zelensky or force it to sign an agreement which would prevent NATO expansion and would benefit him in bolstering his domestic popularity and Russia’s regional and international grandeur, and thus imposing a fait accompli in the face of which France and Germany would be unable to comply with American pressure due to their need for Russian energy.
However, America and Britain, in addition to France, where Macron is at this stage facing electoral upheavals, and Germany, after the departure of Angela Merkel, had had different calculations and arrangements; this is why Putin hinted at France and Germany during his latest speech and pointed out that they had inclined towards the US, which according to him, was unacceptable to Russia.
Faced with this reality, in which Russia’s gamble failed him, Putin found himself compelled to pursue his military escalation to dominate and dismember Ukraine, lay siege to her cities and strike the strongholds of the nationalists opposing Russia in an attempt to exact an agreement which would impinge on the American plan pertinent to the Russian lebensraum and European energy security, and impose, at least, Ukraine’s neutrality in the geostrategic aspect, especially as his battle with Ukraine is in fact a battle with the US who has exploited the Ukrainian government to achieve her aims, a narrative Ukrainian President Zelensky did not shy away from when he accepted to discuss Ukraine’s neutrality; i.e., he admitted his affiliation to the US and his partiality. Hence, Putin hastened to take the decision to go to war at all costs since accepting Ukraine’s membership to NATO and her embracing of the Western liberal model in governance, economy and sociology, would extend the erosion of the Russian lebensraum to Russia proper, and this is what America had heralded by inducing the Chechen war and infiltrating the Russian political milieu in a manner that nearly led to placing Russia within the ranks of client states and making her squander all her riches through the privatisation policy executed by America’s men in Russia such as Sergei Kiriyenko and Anatoly Chubais.
During the press conference he held on 1 February, Vladimir Putin said “I still believe the US is not concerned about Ukraine’s security though they may be thinking about it on the sideline. America’s main aim is to contain Russia’s development and growth. This is all there is to it. And in this sense, Ukraine is merely a tool to achieve this aim. This could be done in various ways: through luring us into some armed conflicts, or compelling her allies in Europe to impose harsh sanctions on us, as the US is talking today.”
Although Putin realised that America had left him no choice but to invade Ukraine, this however does not mean he will proceed in the American trap to the end. He has rather set a host of aims designed to recapture Ukraine to either Russian affiliation or neutrality, irrespective of the costs, knowing that Russia’s gambles have been unsuccessful ever since the Soviet Union’s era in the face of sprawling American influence, which it could not confront with military power alone. A clear example of this notion was reflected in the American trap for Russia in Afghanistan; in an interview with French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed in 1988 that the CIA had laid a trap for Moscow by arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet-backed government in Kabul, six months before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
As for Putin’s wager on China, it was also unsuccessful because China’s interests lie with America and Europe more than they do with Russia. China is attempting to strike a balance between her relationship with Russia and her relationship with the West at a time when Putin does not want her to be neutral. America has been aware of this narrative, which prompted her to warn China against helping Russia. Consequently, Putin was left with the option of shoring up the domestic front, and this is why he launched during his latest speech a scathing attack on the “fifth columnists”, describing them as “insects stuck in the mouth” and calling on the masses to “spit them out”. His speech also tackled the West’s banking on the sanctions and on exaggerating the Russian military losses. He called on the masses to place Russian nationalist sovereignty ahead of personal expediencies; this alludes to the presence of a treason and an American infiltration of the close circle of his clique. It also indicates that Putin will pursue his struggle against America by relying on military escalation and imposing Ukraine’s neutrality by force or through a face-saving compromise. In this context, America could endorse an agreement on a ceasefire, to which Ukrainian President alluded by saying he was “open to negotiations on Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk”, especially as America has achieved what she had wanted, and especially as prolonging the war would increase American gains and weaken Putin further and drive him to resort to excessive force and thus aggravate the Europeans’ trepidations towards him.
Hence, any agreement to end the war will not turn the clock back and it will leave Ukraine under threat to keep Europe in a constant state of anxiety and subsequently nurture the European apprehensions, especially as the devastation exacted by Russia on Ukrainian cities and the Russian nuclear threat brings Europe back to the memories of the Second World War and its horrors. All this is in the interest of the US as the Ukrainian war has led to increasing the defence budgets of Germany and Italy to meet the criteria set by the US for NATO member states; this was reflected in several contracts for the purchase of American weapons including F35 jetfighters and anti-ballistic missile defense system THAAD which the US exhibited recently in the Emirates in shooting down the missiles of al-Houthi, and the contracts for the purchase of Javelin, the anti-tank missiles.
Hence, America is compelling the Europeans to pay the price of the American security umbrella which would allow her to shift her expenditure for hegemony purposes elsewhere in the world. As for the fallouts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, America and Russia are in fact both effective enemies of the Muslims; despite their divergent interests, they however agree, together with other countries of the Capitalist world, on preventing the Muslims from achieving liberation. Such a reality, in which Western interests have clashed, and although it may somehow benefit the Muslims, it however could not be expected to unshackle the Islamic Ummah from the dominion of belligerent and covetous international powers; this is because Putin achieving his aims would not prevent America from pursuing her ghoulish comportment throughout the world, and towards the Muslims in particular, especially as Putin does not aspire to jostle with America on the world scene; he has rather proved on several occasions that he has been on America’s side in her aggression against the Muslims and in plundering their resources. He allowed America to use Russian military bases and Russian lebensraum’s airspace to attack Afghanistan, and he also colluded with America to prevent the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime and extinguish the “Syrian revolution”. Moreover, Putin’s victory in the Ukraine war would deter the Muslim Central Asian countries from thinking about liberation.
As for the US, she has achieved what she had wanted since Russia moved militarily to invade Ukraine. She has rallied the European states behind her and forced China to observe a certain amount of neutrality, at least in this battle, especially as China does have any interest in the sanctions imposed on Russia. America has also redefined “the West” and redesigned the relationships with Europe on the grounds of setting aside all political rifts and economic interests for the sake of upholding the “common values of liberal democracy.” America has also achieved the main aim in respect of controlling Europe through NATO, with European financing and American weapons, embedding the threat on energy security in Europe thanks to the Russian war on Ukraine, and dismantling Europe’s confidence in Putin after the departure of Angela Merkel who had been persistent on completing the Nord Stream 2 project and good relations with Russia. This is because weaning Europe off Russian energy would weaken the relationship between them and deepen the state of uncertainty and the Russian threats to Europe; it would also make the American areas of influence in Africa and the Middle East a source for European energy. Consequently, Europe would have no choice but to depend fully on the US in confronting the Russian threat, achieving the continent’s energy security and security her energy supplies. In this context, the US-Iranian nuclear agreement is being reanimated in Geneva, the political situation in Libya is being tackled and the relationship between the US and Venezuela is being smoothed with the aim of reinstating them in the world’s energy market. OPEC, for its part, is being directed towards increasing production to regulate gas and oil prices, and China is being dragged towards Saudi, as bin Salman’s invitation of the Chinese President to visit Saudi coincided with Russia’s attempts to lean economically, financially and diplomatically on China. Bin Salman’s initiative was undoubtedly inspired by America with the aim of neutralising China at this stage, alienating her from Russia in the energy sector and steering her towards the Gulf in order to control her energy security.
Although this war has rekindled the memory of the Muslims and drawn their attention to the racist and ugly face of the West; it has even drawn their attention to the ruling cliques in the Muslims’ lands who have let down their brethren in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Kashmir, Palestine, Syria and Iraq. This war has also exposed the cowardice of the rulers who did not dare sympathise with their peoples and come to their aid as the Western leaders did with Ukraine. Although the Kuffar’s destroying of their homelands and with their own hands has evoked the sense of revenge from those who had oppressed them, the outcomes of this war however will not change the nature of confrontation between the Muslims and their enemies throughout the world; i.e., the conditions will not change and they will not be able to influence international relations until they change their inner selves: Allah the Almighty says “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of people until they change what is within themselves.” [al-Ra’ad-11]
The Muslims should be wary, amid the American strategy towards Russia and China, of being harnessed yet again in this war as firewood or a cannonball under the name of Jihad for the sake of Allah, as it has been noted that the Capitalist West and the decisionmakers in the US are overwhelmed by a wave of hysteria induced by greed and egoism; hence, the notion of throwing all their weapons in their struggle, including rekindling Jihad and dragging the Muslims into an inferno that has nothing to do them, cannot be ruled out. Reminding the Muslims of their history in Ukraine, the mufti of Ukraine’s call upon the Muslims to declare Jihad against Russia, the mufti of Russia’s claims that the Russian war is legitimate and America’s highlighting of the grievance of the Uyghur Muslims in China, all this is not innocent; and the Muslim is never stung from the same hole twice.
16 Sha’aban 1443h
19 March 2022