By Dr Tafataona Mahoso

IN the last instalment, I described the relational view as opposed to the linear Western perspective on the NATO war against the Russian Federation over Ukraine. 

I said one of the characteristics of the latter perspective was the almost total disregard for the lives and interests of the people who live in and around Ukraine; that is,  the removal from  consideration of those who are committed to sustainable local and regional peace and co-operation; those who have nowhere else to go regardless of which side ‘wins’ or ‘loses’ the conflict. In the case of the recently concluded NATO occupation of Afghanistan, the voices of such people were hidden from media until the NATO forces were leaving.

For a deeper appreciation of the imperialist vision of the Ukraine war, readers are referred to two recent articles in The Economist magazine. 

On February 18 2023 the magazine published a feature titled: ‘What Ukraine means for the world – The outcome of the conflict will determine the West’s authority’.

On February 19 2023, the same magazine followed with yet another feature titled: ‘The West is struggling to forge a new arsenal for democracy: Production of weapons is set to increase, but it may be too slow for future conflicts as well as for Ukraine’. 

The people of Ukraine and the region have been removed from these Economist features.

Another source that can help to make explain the imperialist view of  wars of the nature of the Ukraine conflict would be the writings of Professor Noam Chomsky, for example, Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World.

Erasing the people: Imperial  interests and linear questions

The first of the two Economist articles I have mentioned went on to summarise Western concerns in Ukraine in terms of just three strategic questions or outcomes: 

• What role the US will play in defending Europe (continental European security) after Ukraine;

• Whether continental European members of NATO can take more responsibility for European defence and reduce the burden of the US, so that the latter can focus attention and resources on the South-East Asia region;

• How the outcome of the Ukraine conflict might affect the allegiance of other countries and regions to US leadership in particular and Western influence in general.

Note that The Economist writers assume that the West commands respect and ‘authority’ which it might enhance or diminish using in Ukraine.

The second        feature, already mentioned, went to great lengths describing some of the weapons being produced for the supposed ‘arsenal of democracy’ intended to liberate Ukraine from Russia. 

It was emphasised that the cost of the war would be greatly reduced by increasing the use of kamikaze drones.  

Other publications also confirmed the fast moves in this conflict to reliance on high tech drones and satellites. This has the effect of further removing the civilian population from the picture, except as unavoidable victims of so-called ‘collateral damage’.

Most disturbing is the fact that the reconstruction of the country after the conflict is not considered in the articles, except as one of those areas where the US would want its other NATO allies to assume responsibility while it turns to conflict with China in South-East Asia. 

What should  make reconstruction more uncertain and more worrying for the people of the whole region is the fact that this is the sort of war where no real ‘victory’ can be imagined. 

If the outcome is inconclusive, no-one can be expected to commit resources to a robust reconstruction programme. 

In other words, none of the envisaged outcomes includes a coherent reconstruction programme for Ukraine. 

Russia’s main objective is to make NATO membership of its neighbours so costly as to be unworthy the effort. In this light, Russia has already succeeded.

In his Imperial Ambitions in 2005, Chomsky referred to the US policy behind the increasing use of space communications and drones. 

He said: “Right after the announcement, with great fanfare, of the (US) National Security Strategy in September 2002, another announcement was made that received no coverage, even though it may be more important (in the long-run). 

The (US) Airforce Space Command, which is in charge of advanced space-age nuclear and other weaponry, released its projection for the next several years, in which it said that the US is going to move from ‘control’ of space to ‘ownership’ of space.

What does ownership of space mean? 

It means putting platforms in space for highly destructive  weapons, including nuclear and laser weapons, which can be launched instantaneously, without warning, anywhere in the world. 

It means hypersonic drones that will keep the whole world under photo surveillance, with high-resolution devices.”

Chomsky, of course, went on to mention that, in 2002, China and Russia were already making moves to counter the notion that space could be owned by the US. 

India was likely to do the same. 

This means Ukraine is already being set up as a battleground for drone technologies from at least three sources: US, Russia and China, with tragic consequences for communities on the ground.

This Eurocentric and linear view of the conflict clearly contradicts Western propaganda, aimed at the rest of us and the home population, on the same war. 

That propaganda pays lip-service to human rights, humanitarian relief, democracy and prospects for the people of Ukraine to prosper in a market economy after the war. 

But the only market which is guaranteed for now is the thriving weapons market which Ukraine has become, against the people’s lives and livelihoods.