Crisis in Ukraine and our moral outrage
THE Russia-Ukraine crisis has been precipitated in short-term by President Putin but in long-term brewed by the West.
When the USSR lay sundered in 1990, Russia was told there would be no eastward expansion of NATO.
“Not an inch eastward,” the US had assured Gorbachev.And NATO granted membership to Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic and Georgia and Ukraine as aspirants for the next wave of expansion, whenever it came.
One could argue that after the loss of its empire why Russia would care how close NATO came to its borders.
Why would the dead bird be afraid of boiling water?The US, therefore, didn’t take its promises to Russia seriously.
It had limitless power.Not only had it vanquished a formidable foe, but it was the judge, jury and executioner of the world.
It was the creator of rules governing international politics/economics.It was an interpreter of those rules and it was a vindicator when someone misbehaved and needed to be brought into line.
Finally, it was not bound by its own rules in the best illustration of American Exceptionalism basking in its unipolar moment.
Among other things, this meant that promises made to losers were optional in nature.The losers could like it or lump it.For a long time, the losers – Russians – lumped it.
The early years after the collapse of the USSR were marked by US condescension and dismissiveness towards Russia.
Clinton expected the Kremlin to accept the US’ definition of Russia’s national interests.
The victors treated France after its defeat at Waterloo with respect and partly on account of that Europe had a century of peace.
One of the main reasons for the rise of Hitler was the humiliation Germans felt at how their country was treated following defeat in the First World War.
Unfortunately, in its unipolar moment, the US set a series of precedents showing its lack of respect for its own rules.
Guantanamo, attack against Iraq founded on plain lies, Abu Gharaib, going after despots selectively – remove Gaddafi, allow Kim to remain in place and support Mubarak, intervene forcefully to break-up countries it didn’t like, like Sudan, support Israel as it violated Palestinian rights and India as it did the same to Kashmiris, and since it was writer and interpreter of rules, label victims, Palestinians and Kashmiris, as terrorists and threaten those who would come to their assistance with the same appellation, while giving free rein to their oppressors.
Putin was watching and taking notes.And then, one day, US hubris, with West in tow, and Russian angst finally came to head, in Ukraine.
It could have been avoided.The US/NATO had no intention of making Ukraine a member of NATO for the simple reason that no one in NATO was willing to fight for Ukraine under Article-5 of NATO, should Russia ever come to blows with it.
Russia, for its part, after suffering violations of not an inch promise had decided that it would not yield an inch on Ukraine.
Yet Ukraine was led to believe that as a sovereign state it had the right to make its own decisions.
This included seeking NATO membership.Thus, the US/West chose to sacrifice Ukraine to prove a principle they had little intention of putting into practice.
Now, that storm has broken, it exposed deep defects in the façade of principle and propriety that all concerned are trying hard to project.
Russia is an aggressor plain and simple, led by a leader who having practised limitless and unaccountable power at home is now trying to do the same in his neighbourhood, deriving justification from the US behaviour in its own neighbourhood.
The script required a villain and Putin and Russia walked into role.At the same time, Western media has gone into overdrive to demonize Putin.Much of it is deserved but much of it is hypocrisy laced with racism.
They are somehow different and more deserving of sympathy and support than victims of aggression and foreign occupation in usual cesspools of misery like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine and Syria.
Some places do not merit a mention even in this list since recognizing their pain and misery is too much of an effort and carries too high a cost.
Kashmir is a good example.While bravery of Ukrainian military/civilians against aggressor and occupier is extolled, same bravery of Palestinians and Kashmiris against even greater odds and worst brutalities and atrocities is considered illegitimate and terrorism.
The message to us who live in less privileged non-blonde, non-blue eyed and Muslim part of the world is that if you are Christian and fight against someone invading your country, particularly if he is also a rival or enemy of the West, you are kosher.
If you are Muslim and brown and your occupier and aggressor is non-Muslim and a ‘friend’ of the West, then you have no right to fight for your freedom.
The cherry on top of this rather unpalatable cake of double standards is an open letter by EU envoys calling on Pakistan to support resolution against Russia.
One cannot find a word of condemnation of Indian atrocities in IIOJK from any of the countries which these eminent ambassadors represent in Islamabad, let alone the collective of them.
Just as Ukrainians are fighting foreign aggressor and occupier, Kashmiris are too, for far longer and at much greater cost.
—The writer is Islamabad based expert of Indian Affairs.
