¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

WHILE much of the world is extremely vexed, and rightly so, over the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the prospect of renewed US-Zionist blitz of Iran, it is hard to imagine either of these two crises flaring into a global conflagration.

The Russia–Ukraine war is more than three years old and still raging without any end in sight. It has the potential to flare up into World War III with no assurance of the present conventional hostility escalating into a nuclear exchange engulfing the entire world. It looks like that the war is confined between two states, but in reality, it is a conflict between Russia and the collective west.

The friction neither started in 2022 nor 2014 and not even during the cold war. It is, rather, nearly a millennia old. Its roots can be traced back to the final parting of Catholic and Orthodox churches in the 11th century. Both were at odds over a number of issues for the previous few centuries before the acrimonious breakdown known as the great schism. The former was led by the Pope in Rome, the latter by the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church located in Constantinople, the present-day Istanbul.

Apparently, both the sides differed on deep theological issues, but the friction of imperial interests between the eastern and the western Roman empire was inescapably enmeshed. The lingua franca of the western empire was Latin and Greek in the east because it was widely spoken in Alexandria, which had been the epicentre of the eastern empire before Constantinople gained prominence. Their imperial rivalry grew so bitter that the 4th Crusade was fought against the eastern Roman empire, instead of the Arabs in the early 13th century and Constantinople was sacked.

After Constantinople had fallen to the Turks in the 15th century, the power and influence of the Orthodox Church slowly migrated to Russia because of the growing number of new converts there and the expanding power of the Russian state. But this did not mean that the schism between the two churches ceased to exist. In fact, this deepened further. A key reason was the entire Scandinavian and Baltic regions adjacent to the west of Russia converted to Roman Catholicism between the 10th and 14th centuries. So, neither side was comfortable with the other as neighbours. Besides, the usual dispute over land and feudal interests of the mediaeval times was also very much present. Moreover, the Russians being Slavic while the people in the western regions being of other ethnic origin made matters worse. From early on, friction between Russia and the people in its western border regions had ethnic, religious and socio-political elements.

Add to all these a touch of jealousy over Russia having such a huge landmass was also a factor. So, a contest over the territory was unavoidable. The Baltic states Sweden and the Poles claimed a portion of the vast Russian landmass. A conflict was inevitable, first with Lithuania in the 16th century and, then, with the Poles in the 17th century and with the Swedes in the 18th. Each resulted in Russia’s victory, entrenching the enmity.

In this tussle for land, power and primacy, Russia was no saint either. While it was busy confronting various European powers in the west, it was engaged in expansion in its east and south ie, beyond the Urals and Caucasus regions where many semi-nomadic Tatars and the Cossacks lived. Such incursion and absorption continued from the 17th to the 19th century. It was no cakewalk. Both of these people resisted. They were descendants of Mongols and a few other central Asian very independent-minded tribes and, of course, very rustic. Assimilating them in the Russian state and social structure was not easy. It was bloody, messy and, above all, considered brutal acts of the Slavic/Russian people by the so-called refined Europeans.

While Russia was busy creating its own destiny, Europe was going through a sea-change in its worldview arising out of a series of internal socioeconomic upheavals. First was the renaissance, shaking the very foundation of European civilisation since the rise of Christianity.Ìý Then came the Reformation, quickly followed by the enlightenment movement along with scientific discoveries, the Industrial Revolution and the colonial project. All these interventions catapulted the Europeans into a point of clear advantage over not only the Russians but also the rest of the world. They came to consider the Russians backward, rustic and moribund in its mediaeval past like the rest of the colonial people. The old divide widened further.

To the Europeans, Russians, though part of Europe, were, nevertheless, uncultured but unjustifiably owned an enormous landmass endowed with a huge deposit of natural resources. Just as the European colonists had a hawkish look for colonies in Asia, Africa and the Americas, Russia, too, was in their sight. It, too, was eager to connect and learn from Europe. Emperor Peter, the pioneer of this outreach, imported and attempted to imitate European ie, the French culture, in Russia. But as was expected, the Europeans developed a condescending attitude. The Russians obviously did not like it and remained ensconced in age-old absolute monarchy and orthodox religion. This was the background when Napoleon invaded Russia to enlighten the Russians and exploit its vast resources as the blood price. Pity, he failed miserably!

Russia woke up from its mediaeval slumber all right but followed into the footsteps of the European imperialists. It joined the concert of Europe in Vienna after Waterloo and became a continental power. It embarked on an internal colonial project of its own and marched right up to the Pacific and joined European powers to cut a slice out of China’s northeast. The British, the then only global power, was alarmed. However, it got far more worried after the Crimean war in 1853–56 where both were enemies. It triggered a rivalry between these two powers over influence and control, first, in eastern Europe and, then, across central Asia with the prospect of reaching right up to western borders of India. This triggered the still ongoing Brits-Russian rivalry. Generations of Brits and Russians grew up loathing each other.

But why and when did this hatred spread in the rest of Europe? After all, Russia was a key player in the concert of Europe since the Vienna Congress in 1815. As said already, a condescending attitude towards the Russians was already there expressed in a widely shared epitaph ‘Russian bear’ across Europe. It was somewhat like the disdain that the Brahmins felt for lower castes. Such derision worsened once Europe catapulted itself to industrialisation and modernity that provided material gain for a large number of its citizens between 1816 and 1914, a venture where Russia lagged far behind. It was still locked in old feudal ways. The spirit of enterprise was absent. Of course, in this same period, Europe experienced turmoil and upheaval led by the working classes that left a deep impact on the Russians at the end of this period.

On the one hand, the growing entrepreneurial class in Europe wanted a monopoly of power over the state, but working classes charged with the revolutionary spirit in post-Waterloo period wanted their share of the pie. It resulted in a series of violent clashes first in Paris and then in major western cities during the same period as stated above. Concurrently, dialogues between the contending groups were taking place in the assembly chambers in these cities. By the end of this period, European and US ruling elites managed to create a secure oligarchy made of the civil-military bureaucracy and the wealthy classes the permanent state. It slowly accommodated some of the key demands of the working classes provided the latter did not enter the race for state power. Thus, the elites felt sure that they finally crushed the working class movements for good by using both blood and iron tactics and dialogues. Fate decided otherwise. The Russian Revolution struck them as a bolt from the blue. For the elites, it was the dreaded French Revolution and the turmoil all over again.

Centuries-old prejudices against Russia took a vicious turn. The Red scare gripped the western elites. The working class movements that they had crushed in the respective countries during the 19th century now seized power in the Kremlin. They refused to watch from afar. Right after the Versailles treaty, Anglo-French and America dispatched an expeditionary force to assist the White army fighting the Red army with an intent to crush the revolution in bud. It failed. But the hatred and fear resonated across the entire western world. An undeclared cold war descended between western states and the Soviet Union. There was hardly any interaction. And by the late twenties when Stalin became the supreme leader, he was looked upon as the devil incarnate.

This was the backdrop when Hitler emerged as an anti-Bolshevik crusader and was promptly endorsed by the Anglo-French as a bulwark against Stalin. He was hailed for crushing the trade unions, but looked the other way when he started persecuting the Jews. The European elites were in awe with his ruthless acts to rid Germany of the socialists. They and the Americans were eager to do business with him. The British elites especially admired him and made the awful non-aggression Munich pact with him in 1938. Some say that there was a secret clause. It allowed him to invade Russia in order to relocate the European Jews in the vast Russian plains and also to get rid of the Bolsheviks. Other Europeans approved it. The then French foreign minister George-Etienne Bonnet’s following statement after the pact was signed says it all. ‘From now on, the third Reich will focus on fighting the Bolsheviks in the east.’ Stalin, sensing a dirty trick, signed a similar pact with Hitler in 1939. Only when he tore up the Munich pact, the Anglo-French had no choice but to act, triggering World War II The French succumbed quickly while the Brits were in panic and sought Stalin’s help.

One of the biggest lies of the causes for the war has been censored by the western ruling elites. It was their active role in endorsing Hitler for their political gains that gave him the scope to re-arm all the while they looked away until he turned against them. Another lie is that it was not only the Germans but armies from all over Europe except the Brits joined the invasion of Russia. The third lie is a complete denial of the Chinese resistance against Japan, resulting in millions of casualties. The fourth lie is that Germany was not defeated by the western allies but by the Red army. The allies played a contributing role. From 1942 to 44, before the Normandy landings, the Red army crushed the Germans on the eastern front but in the process, the Soviet Union lost nearly 27 million people. Now the collective west wants to deny Russia’s role and, moreover, accuse Stalin as Hitler’s accomplice. Not only that, after defeating Hitler, they embraced his drive of global domination led by America with a touch of his racial doctrine as well. At the fag end of the war, the United States, without any military need, used the atomic bomb, warning the Soviet not to test America’s writ. They were given the cold shoulder since the twenties but now got branded enemy no 1. It was the only hurdle to the ambition of the United States of a global empire. The cold war was imposed on them.

The Europeans were physically exhausted, materially destroyed and financially ruined. So, when the United States offered Marshal Plan, they felt relieved. There was a catch. Western Europe had to submit to the US plan for global hegemony. NATO would be the instrument of choice. Europe forfeited its sovereignty. At least, it did not have to live under Stalin. Their long held hatred of the Russians need not be compromised. Eastern Europe had no such choice because it was firmly under Soviet occupation. However, once western Europe regained its economic power, it slowly began asserting itself. First, it created the EEC in 1957 and then floated the eurodollar to the irritation of the United States. The latter was a dollar beyond control of the FED. And then they dared to make a deal with the Russians for cheap pipeline gas. Moreover, Europe was not too happy with the US gunboat diplomacy. Yet, they went along even if reluctantly.

Between 46 and 91, Europe did practise a form of social democracy out of choice but silently also nursed its age-old suspicion and dislike of the Soviet Union. The fear of the latter kept them tied firmly with the United States as junior partners despite grumbling. But, once it disintegrated, Europe imagined its time had come. Their hated adversary had finally been defeated. Soon, in Professor Jeffrey Sachs words, EU trapped itself as a ‘cheerleader of US’s global hegemony’ via NATO expansion to squeeze Russia into total submission.’ To the western mindset, Russia lost the cold war and now needed to be dismantled to allow the west’s control over its natural resources, their long held ambition and groom them in western ways. For a decade or so, Russia, reluctantly though, went along with such a tilted arrangement. But then, slowly but surely, Russia refused to take it any more and started asserting itself.

The United States and its European vassals viewed this as Russia’s refusal to accommodate the western worldview. Such a condescending attitude was not helpful in improving the Russia-west relationship. On the other hand, for most of the past three decades, Europe enjoyed its golden age. They availed the US security umbrella very cheaply while it thrived on cheap Russian energy and China’s huge market. They invested heavily in social programmes and became the most well organised continent with quality life, expanding economy and a balanced social cohesion. They went on lecturing the world on the virtues of liberal democracy, free market, human rights and the environment while still engaged in policing the world in tandem with the United States. But, it was considered a minor price. Yes, Russia was a tough neighbour and still had a few rustic ways, however, as it also offered economic prospects so needed to be engaged but kept outside the tent and could never be treated as equals.

Generations of westerners grew up viewing the Russians as lesser humans. Such old prejudices die hard. While Eastern Europe had a legitimate grudge against Russia, it was the western Europeans at the end of the cold war that wanted to impose its value system on Russia and also exploit its natural resources. Russia, too, needed advanced technical know-hows. Yes, both collaborated but never fully trusted the other. Such an uneasy relationship was somehow managed until NATO started enlarging eastwards. Tension brewed. Russia repeatedly warned but to no avail. It is only when Ukraine was invited to join, the tension flared up. Why is NATO still there? It was created to defend the Euro-Atlantic states against the perceived Soviet threat. When the latter dissolved, what was the logic for its continued existence? As said already, it was the appropriate tool for the US ambition of global hegemony. After the cold war, NATO was put to use precisely for this purpose wherever needed across the globe.

The Euro-Atlantic alliance was adamant to bring Ukraine into NATO despite Russia’s objection. Russia, alarmed at such a prospect, placed two treaty proposals — one to NATO and one to the United States in late 2021 — expecting a negotiated settlement. After the both had refused to discuss the proposals, all hell broke loose. NATO provoked Russia to start the military operation in Ukraine and the collective west responded by using Ukraine as their proxy to weaken and bleed and, if possible, defeat Russia. But after more than three years of a bloody, grinding war, it is now clear that it has reached a point where the west can neither win nor can afford to lose. The war can only end at Russia’s term or escalate into World War III, where a nuclear war cannot be ruled out. It is a situation unlike any other. At stake is the collective west’s more than three centuries of global hegemony and Russia’s very existence.

Neither side is willing to bend. Although in recent times even if the United States is showing to be a bit flexible, Europe is adamant. Why? The answer has two facets. Over more than three centuries, Europe has collectively cultivated an image of itself as the begetter and carrier of the superior western civilisation, enabling its mastery over the world. It is a mindset long ingrained in the European elites. It is near impossible for them to come to terms with the fact the world is no longer Euro-centric. Europe once considered America an extension of this superior creation but after two world wars and the loss of colonies, tables have turned. And now, it finds itself dependent on America not only for security but also for markets as well. Yet, old European nostalgia is hard to let go. More so both together form the collective west. At stake is its ‘global hegemony’ aptly put by Boris Johnson, a former United Kingdom prime minister. The European Union and the United States thought that sanctions would cripple Russia and force it to fold quickly, for them to dictate terms. Now, they are staring at a defeat, while drowning in false pride that they are going crazy and seriously imagining World War III. There is something else. For three main powers in Europe ie, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, stakes are even higher that need extra focus.

Having lost its empire, the United Kingdom has lost much of its relevance. It has punched much above its capacity by latching itself to the US imperial cart to project power. Unable to come out of its bubble, it goes on gambling for the impossible. It suffers a pathological hatred for Russia and is trapped in its own rhetoric. Both have so many bones to pick. Least of all, Britain was furious when some of the Romanovs were executed by the Bolsheviks because they were closely related to the British royals. Many of the Russian nobles who had migrated to Britain after the revolution waged a sustained anti-Bolshevik campaign with the active assistance of the British government. It falsely accused the Russians of backing the first Labour government in 1924, resulting in its quick resignation. Over the past 100 years, such accusations from both ends have polluted interstate relations. The Brits are mad with envy that Russians are again a great power. They are not.

Germany’s case is somewhat different. Deep down, they very well know it was the Russians who defeated them on the eastern front long before the western allies came in. Being a proud nation, it was a bitter pill to swallow. The humiliation remained etched in their collective memory. But they had no choice and, so, remained silent. Once the United States decided to provoke Russia in Ukraine, Germans or at least most of them got the chance to avenge. After all, nearly the entire German nation backed the Nazi war machine. Germany along with the rest of Europe hoped that Russia would fold in no time in the face of severe sanctions. Now they are stuck. It is now a prestige issue for all of them. Europeans, living in the bubble of their own making, thought that they could do business with Russia and also smack them whenever it could. Poland and a few other east European states had genuine grievances against Russia while under its occupation during the cold war. Europeans can neither wish Russia away nor embrace it as an equal partner in European affairs.

For the French, it is now entirely a matter of prestige. In the past three years, all the French military missions in Africa were asked to leave by the respective states. The French accuse Russia behind this manoeuvre in order to deploy its military missions. Add to this insult a constant instability at home on both the political and economic fronts. A big chunk of the French opposition is totally against the elitist/globalist project of the president. Yet, he is fixated about waging a military campaign against Russia because he along with the rest of the EU leadership imagine that they are the indispensable people on earth. It is their inalienable right to lord over the world — a strange sense of entitlement. Europe can neither walk away from the conflict nor dare go to war with Russia instead pushing Ukraine to total ruin.

Being groomed over several centuries by the unwritten rule/idea/concept of ‘white man’s supremacy’ has made most Europeans, rather the entire western elite, to come to believe in their own myths that make them irrational. One wonders if they have inherited such myths from imperial Rome; it once considered all those people that resisted its rule ‘barbarians.’ In the present conflict, such nasty words have been used frequently by a few in the top leadership in the collective west, meaning Russian and other people in the global south. Such a colonial outlook is hard to dislodge.

However, amidst all this gloom, there is a glimmer of hope. A counter-narrative is building up in Europe. Outside the elite circle, people across Europe are beginning to question the wisdom of subordinating national policies to an unelected body of bureaucrats in Brussels. The globalist view of technocratic governance with only lip-service to democracy is increasingly facing resistance in western societies.

Last but not least, beyond the diplomatic niceties, a silent racial rivalry between the Anglo-Saxon and the Slavic people plays a role. It bolsters monopoly capital’s global reach shielded by NATO. It needs to pacify the sovereignty of nation states and their capital that makes the much needed compromise extremely difficult.

Ìý

Ali Ahmed Ziauddin is a researcher and activist.