Let’s talk Ukraine and geopolitics
“I support Ukraine, but the geopolitics of any war is dirty” — I’ve heard this sentiment from multiple well-meaning friends, so this time, I’m looking closely at the reasoning behind. In my arguments, I borrow heavily from my conversations about Ukraine, Russia, the US, and the Middle East.
I’ve noticed that this line of reasoning about geopolitics— that “There’s no such thing as a clear good and evil in any war, including the Russo-Ukrainian one” — stands on three pillars:
(i) seeing the West as spoilt, hypocritical, imperialist, or all three things combined,
(ii) having personally experienced the injustices of America’s wars, Western politics, or corporate greed,
(iii) giving the Russian narratives excessive benefit of the doubt.
What’s geopolitics, anyway?
Geopolitics is a chess-game of wielding power on the international arena.
True, geopolitics is a dirty word to many ears. However, ignoring the role of geopolitical chess-game in shaping history is like pretending that babies are found in cabbage leaves.
In geopolitics, each country pursues its own national interest. Still, in that pursuit, depending on which alliances are formed and how power is subsequently wielded, — the world-wide outcomes differ, — depending on the order that prevails.
It’s in recognising this range of outcomes, — and accepting that choices must be made — that one’s personal position matters. After all, in democracies, and arguably in autocracies, too, — citizens can move a needle in the course that their governments pursue.
When it comes to which world order one wants to live in, a personal position is easy to arrive at. For most, it suffices that I ask the question: “Would you rather live in [insert a Western democracy] or in Russia?” It helps if one actually tasted what it’s like living in both systems, or at least talked to those who did.
The Western colonial hypocrisy — a view from Europe
One source of arguments around “dirty geopolitics” is the disillusionment with the way Western empires have wielded their power in the past.
Remnants of imperialism are still present in Western democracies’ political course. In many European countries (Germany is case in point), the traumas of post-WWII history have not been dealt with.
To finally resolve this trauma of imperialism — on the European continent at least — Europe must see that Ukraine is fighting a war against an imperial power — Russia. For a final full stop in WWII history, Russia’s colonial ambitions for much of Eastern Europe should be contained once and for all.
The Western colonial hypocrisy — a view from the US
What of the US support of Ukraine, then? Isn’t the US itself an imperial power? An often-used example is the US imperialist wars in the Middle East. The argument “America is bad, because of its colonial pursuits in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East” is a valid critique of the US imperialist wars.
However, this “US hypocrisy” critique ignores the basic reality that US geopolitical aims in Ukraine are different to those of America’s wars in the Middle East. So instead of asking “which mistakes have the US made in the past?”, ask: “how are the US geopolitical actions affecting the world we want in the future?”
Few would dispute that the US foreign policy in in the Middle East has mostly been a failure. However, the US geopolitical aims in Ukraine are different to those in the Middle East. The latter have been colonially motivated, while America’s support for Ukraine is motivated by interests outside Ukraine.
Outside Ukraine, Taiwan and the Baltics may be next in line for invasion, if Ukraine fails to defend itself with the help of allies. Also, the nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan, would be a natural response, if an ex-nuclear power (Ukraine used to have world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal prior to 1994) cannot maintain its borders under the order that guarantees sovereignty in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons.
Inside Ukraine, — which is a sovereign nation, with a functional democratically elected government, — there is no ambiguity about the US support. Ukrainians want Russia out of their country, and everyone understands that the Western-supplied weapons are critical to achieve that end.
Is this a US-Russia war?
A Filipino friend recently shared his conversation from the aftermath of the Russian invasion. Walking past the White House, they saw one of the many Ukrainian demonstrations. His Chinese-born IMF-based colleague, suggested that in fact “This is a US-Russia war”.
My friend was startled: “She’s lived and studied in the US for years. She’s smart — she works for the IMF! So what is it — the Chinese news she listens to? Or her father being high up in the Chinese military? Or something else altogether?” I think it’s all of those things, and one more, perhaps: viewing the world through the colonial lens.
Filipinos, Vietnamese, Indonesians, and and many others experienced this first hand: when a neighbouring emergent power bullies its smaller neighbours into political and economic submission. In Ukraine or the Philippines, the underlying theme is common: neocolonialism.
The “US-Russia war” narrative emerges directly from the colonial thinking — i.e., seeing Ukraine through the colonial lens — as an object, rather than a subject of international politics. A lack of historical context makes matters worse. Before arguing about the role of the US-Russia relations in the current war, one should understand that Russian imperialism towards Ukraine predates the very existence of the US, let alone the US imperialist ambitions.
My conversation with a Saudi Arabian friend is instructive to summarise the view of some: “But Ukraine is a relatively new country, you’ve only existed since the 90s, right?” I laughed: “To say that Ukraine began in 1991 is about as accurate as that Europe began with the formation of the EU.” The knowledge of history is easy to catch up on: Ukraine has been fighting against the Russian imperialism since at least 1654.
Whatever one’s thoughts on the Russian narrative about “this is the Russia-US war”, I’d like everyone to recognise that the real fight is about the post-WWII world order. If the imperialism is not uprooted, — be it American imperialism in the Middle East, or Russian imperialism towards Ukraine, — the bloodshed and sacrifices of the WWII will remain in vain.
The Western colonial hypocrisy — a view from the Middle East
It takes some history knowledge to understand that what Russia is doing to Ukraine in 2022/23 is similar to what Western colonial powers have done to Middle Eastern nations upon the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, most recently — with the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, and many times in-between. These wars share a common thread— a colonial resource grab, one that cements control over energy resources.
On the Western involvement in the Middle East, I find my Iranian colleague’s words instructive: “To the West, the smell of oil is stronger than the smell of blood”. Ironically, same can be said about the EU’s approach to Ukraine: to Germany and others, the smell of gas has been stronger than the smell of blood, despite decades of Russia’s meddling in Ukraine, Georgia, Transnistria, and more.
Geopolitics is not a fertile ground for moral arguments, so let me make a utilitarian one. It pays off to support the Ukrainian fight against Russian imperialism. The outcome of this fight will matter well beyond Ukraine’s borders, and it’s just as important for the Middle East, as it is for China, and Europe, that imperial wars finally become a thing of the past. Economic prosperity and political stability around the world depend on it.
To those who insist on applying moral judgements, and seeing the West as hypocritical, I admit: I see the same. But no less hypocritical is wanting to live in a just world while leaving an ongoing injustice unresolved.
What’s your personal experience of being treated unjustly?
As I speak to friends about geopolitics, my way of listening has changed over this year. Instead of listening to argue, I listen to understand. From listening to friends’ perspectives on the war, I learnt that our personal experience shapes our views way more than we care to admit.
One’s personal experience of an injustice shapes the perception of the fairness of rules, including the international order. If your friends are persecuted by an Iranian Islamic regime, you are much more inclined to call for Western intervention than if your Muslim friends have been killed by American airstrikes in Afghanistan.
Similarly, an injustice experienced in a Western democracy — be it because of inequality, corruption, a healthcare system failure, gender or race discrimination, or plainly a betrayal of trust by corporations — can hurt no less than atrocities in war zones.
Recognising that past experience affects our ways of thinking takes us one step closer to rational analysis. My utilitarian arguments would sound less sinister if one recognises the difference between a personal line of reasoning and a system-aggregate one.
“I’m not a politician. Why would I care? What can I change?”
In Australia, my Ukrainian accent gives me away, and often prompts questions. With those who ask to understand, I sometimes have lengthy conversations. To those who ask and look away, I offer a thank you for politeness, kindness or compassion.
I realise, we all have limited bandwidth, and processing the intricacies of complicated geopolitical events isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. But if you’ve read this far, I invite you to contemplate this thought: that there’s merit in having clarity about questions that stir emotion, invite discussion, or simply bug you after hearing the news.
To those who have the privilege to think about and discuss matters of geopolitics, but say they’d rather “stay away from geopolitics”, — I suggest that it’s worth pursuing clarity and discernment, for their own sake. I hope that listening, learning, and being able to update one’s thinking based on good quality information — are forces for clearer understanding of the world, and for a greater inner peace.
Final words
Whether you choose a position or refrain from choosing it, your clarity on the issue matters. Theodore Roosevelt put it better than me:
With a great moral issue involved, neutrality does not serve righteousness; for to be neutral between right and wrong is to serve wrong.
Whether we choose a position in the game of geopolitics or refrain from choosing it, the stance we take as individuals is about which world we want for ourselves and our children.
Is it the world of free-for-all, with the law of the jungle governing relations between countries and people?
Or is it the world of rule-based order — one that is imperfect, yet dependable, and aspiring for justice and respect of human dignity and freedom?
Choose wisely.
P.S. Thanks for reading! I keep my posts free, but here’s a quick way to say thanks — donate to Return Alive Foundation, United24 or the KSE Foundation, and #StandWithUkraine! This is the best way to invest in freedom and ensure we live in a safe world.