Are You On The Right Side?
If you receive your information from the mainstream corporate global media, you most probably believe that Putin is evil, Zelensky is a hero, and the West is defending democracies and sovereign nations.
If you are tuned into Russian and Pro-Russian media, you are presumably inclined into believing this war is different, waged for a good cause and for fighting the Western hegemony.
We are witnessing another polarizing global event, creating stark division and generating hatred, dehumanization, and demonization of the other side.
Which side of the story did you get?
To understand the importance of the narrative in shaping today’s world and the perception of the people, I would refer to a passage from a recent book released by the founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) under the name ‘The Great Narrative’:
“As human beings and social animals, we are storytelling creatures, and the stories we tell (the narratives) are our fundamental tool of communication and transmission. Narratives are how we make sense of life; they provide us with a context, thanks to which we can better interpret, understand and respond to the facts we observe.”
The impact of the narrative is nicely described by Ed Newman “he who controls the narrative controls the people”
But this should trigger a series of important questions: Who is controlling the narrative? The role of governments and media? How is it affecting our perception of main events?
From this perspective, let’s take a deep dive into investigating the presented war narratives.
The War Explained By Putin
There is a growing existential threat coming from the West that can no longer be neglected, with the persistent strategy of tightening the noose and a series of provocations. Russia is now surrounded by US/NATO troops and military bases with anti-ballistic missiles that can be converted into offensive nuclear missiles.
“If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes or even 5 minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security”, Putin elaborated at an expended meeting of the Defense Ministry Board in Dec 2021.
In a televised speech on February 24th, Putin went further by mentioning that Russia “can’t feel safe, develop and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine”, and accusing NATO countries of “supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-nazis” and considering that Ukraine is held as a hostage.
From Western Perspective
A contrasting narrative on US/NATO side. The war is described as an unprovoked and unjustified attack on a sovereign nation, and a war on a European democracy that is taking the whole world to the brink of another world war, with some media outlets going further by calling Putin the new Hitler.
The hostility and the aspiration to revive the lost empire can be traced back to 2014 when Russia invaded and seized Crimea as retaliation against losing its power grip over Ukraine… the media is taking this event as a starting point.
Russian actual war is a desperate and illegal act, for bringing back Ukraine into its orbit and installing another Kremlin puppet president.
A Third Perspective / Putting War Into Context
A Russian invasion is a criminal act of aggression that has shocked the world, and the war has been righteously and widely condemned.
But, calling the invasion “unprovoked” and the extensive use of this word by Western media seems to be a deliberate strategy to remove the context of this war, for hiding the main responsibilities in fueling the crisis.
NATO Expansion Eastward
The starting point is the end of World War II, where we have seen the rise of the bi-polar world order headed by two major global powers which are the United States and the Soviet Union.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 to provide collective defense and security. An alliance of major countries from North America and Western Europe to deal with the perceived threat coming from the rise of the Soviet Union.
On the other side, Warsaw Pact was established in 1955 by the Soviet Union, as a balance of power against NATO.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw pact has come to an end in 1991.
Theoretically speaking, NATO’s existence was no longer justified since its core foundation was based on the idea of collective defense against the Soviet Union.
Not only has NATO continued to exist, but it has also grown stronger by stretching its power beyond borders, reaching Ex-Soviet countries in eastern Europe.
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic officially joined NATO in 1999, followed by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania in 2004, in addition to Macedonia in 2020.
This expansion took place despite that in 1991, there was a promise by the US secretary James Baker assuring Russia that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward”.
In 2008, NATO started discussing a “membership action plan” for Ukraine and Georgia, the thing that was pushed back by Russia.
Maidan Revolution And External Influence
Since declaring its independence in 1991, Ukraine has remained in Russia’s sphere of influence until the eruption of the main event that constituted a turning point in Ukraine’s positioning on the global political map.
Maidan revolution — or Euromaidan — that took place in 2013–2014, is one of the most complex episodes in Ukraine’s modern history, with many hidden factors and influences involved.
At the core of the Maidan protests was a push by Western countries —headed by the US — to end Russian dominance in the political situation in Ukraine, and Moscow was pushing back against what it has perceived as an intrusion of its sphere of influence.
The context was highly convenient for external influence, by riding the revolutionary movement of protestors righteously fed up with the corrupted ruling class and wealth inequality.
There was a stark political division among the Ukrainian public between Pro-West seeking more integration with Europe and Pro-Russia arguing about gas dependency and economic trade benefits.
Both US and Russia considered the cleavage as an opportunity to draw the country into their respective orbits.
Victor Yanukovych — the Ukrainian president back then — was in an unpleasant situation to walk between all these tensions, when he finally decided by November 2013 to seal an economic trade deal with Russia with the main consideration of cheap gas supply, snubbing IMF (West) proposed deal with hefty bailout conditions such as cutting spending budget, ending household gas subsidies…
This deal was the spark of the protests that would later topple his government in early 2014.
The US fingerprints were demonstrated in fueling the political turmoil through governmental agencies like USAID and National Endowment for Democracies (NED). Needless to mention that back in 2013, Nuland (assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs) bluntly admitted that the US had spent $5 billion on “democracy promotion” activities in Ukraine.
It was much staggering to see the US supporting far-right extremists (called neo-nazis) that were integrated into the opposition, and continued to be the main drivers of violence and human rights violations through attacks on journalists and political assassinations attempts.
The far-right militias with Nazi roots (Azov Batallion), were later integrated into the Ukrainian army after the coup d’etat — under the same armed forces openly supported by the US.
Following the coup in 2014, Russia moved to illegally annex Crimea to secure a naval base through the military presence and a controversial referendum.
Did the revolution reach its intended outcome?
The frustrated Ukrainians who achieved their objective of ousting Yanukovych, have utterly failed to find the stability and prosperity they aspired with the Pro-Western governments that followed. The protesters’ main demands for ending corruption and external intervention remained merely unfulfilled.
The successors of the ousted president including Zelensky, have continued to nurture autocratic ruling and were faced with corruption scandals.
The same corrupt Zelensky is now lionized by the global media.
Economically speaking, the situation didn’t get much better, Ukraine was pushed to sign a deal with IMF that embedded austerity measures that ended gas subsidies for households with negative consequences on pension programs, and resulted in more privatization.
Reflecting On the West/Russia Conflict
It is not hyperbolic to say that the conflict between Russia and the West, remains widely misunderstood given the surrounding complexity and government/media’s implicit role in obscuring main events.
The understanding of history is depending to a large extent on where you start the clock.
The actual war is a reflection of the conflict between Ex-Soviet Russia and Western Allies led by the United States on the Ukrainian battleground, where the people of Ukraine appear to be the first victims of this proxy war.
Ukrainian leaders have adopted extreme external policies that escalated tensions, instead of grasping the opportunity of building a bridge between the West and Moscow for promoting peace and dialogue.
Since 2014, Ukraine has become with time a de facto NATO ally, holding military drills with US/NATO and receiving generous support for military hardware, budget, and training.
Russia was indeed pushed and provoked by the West, but this should not by any means constitute a justification for the illegal war.
The invasion is a criminal act of aggression that should be condemned and must stop.
Western response by taking extreme military and economic measures is not expected to end the conflict.
The confrontational approach used from both sides is bringing the world to a tragic tipping point.
Conclusion
International politics entails a lot of messy events; yet the governments deliberately insist on pushing a simplistic approach of black and white narrative, to blur the public’s vision.
We would be naïve to think that the West is truly defending democracies and sovereign nations. Unless there is a collective memory hole, the Western audience should be mindful of the endless wars — led by US/NATO — that became a trademark of the 21st century.
For the last twenty years, the US was bombing sovereign nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, leaving behind millions of casualties, along with massive destruction, demographic change, and social misery.
The same as we would be naïve if we get caught up by the brainwash that this is a good war, inevitable, that should put an end to global hegemony and shall constitute a basis for the rise of a fair multi-polar world.
The power-hungry leaders on both sides are pushing the world to the brink of a nuclear world war.
Pick your poison! A unipolar or multipolar world?!
Along with the military scenes and pandemic situation, there is another implicit war taking place beyond borders and nations.
It is a war on opinions, thoughts, freedom of speech, and expression… thereby, totalitarianism is being sold as a matter of fact, while keeping the public anxious and confused.
Opposing opinions are being systematically attacked and dissident voices are being silenced, under the cover of fighting misinformation, leading the way to social conformity and mass obedience to accepting absurd measures.
“The hallmark of courage in our age of conformity is the capacity to stand in one’s convictions” — Rollo May.
A well-informed public is needed now more than ever, for challenging governments’ decisions, and strongly objecting to military intervention as an answer to resolving a dispute.
