Abhijit Bhattacharyya
Author and Columnist
ON the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February last year, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace had exclaimed, “The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in the 1853 Crimea War and we can always do it again,” comparing the 21st-century Russia-Ukraine conflict with the 19th-century war. The Tsar had been pitted against the combined might of England, France and the Ottoman Empire. The Russian defeat of yore and the lack of an international ally were sarcastically invoked to draw a parallel and warn Moscow to watch out for history repeating itself.
What the British Defence Secretary said was neither unsurprising nor unique. War has always had a macabre fascination for Europe. The gory combats and their inglorious consequences have been used to portray the grandeur of the warring West. Most of Europe’s eminent and enlightened scholars, intellectuals and philosophers have been fascinated with, and have spoken eloquently on, the importance of power, war and violence.
Machiavelli pointedly stated, “All armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed.” To him, war, power and hypocrisy are connected. For Thomas Hobbes, conflict emerges from the impulse of self-preservation, thereby making life a “war of all against all” and resulting in it being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the power of the state influenced global politics. His ‘Discourse on Inequality’, according to Voltaire, was “against the human race”. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel unabashedly admired Napoleonic wars and thought that it was a good thing to have wars from time to time. In all these expressions of the European mindset, one thing is clear. There is an element of axiomatic intellectual honesty about justifying, propounding or defending political dishonesty which appears preferable to the hypocrisy of depicting political polemics as an honest and noble enterprise.
In this context, the prolonged Russia-Ukraine war lays bare the stark reality that even an immoral war is good for the moral and ethical health of the West because through wreckage, blood, sweat and tears of widows, destitute and orphans emerge countless opportunities for wealth creation and open plunder by merchants and middlemen. Shortage of food facilitates profiteering too, the way it happened in the 1943 Great Bengal famine, killing 3 million people amid the World War II inflicted by Europe on the world.
As the demand for guns surges, profit too skyrockets with the sale of every weapon or machine. Thus, the enterprise of military hardware production and sale becomes too tempting and lucrative to be eschewed, as after a long gap a ‘real’ war has come to European soil, where big-buck investments and astronomical profits are being made.
Further, if the war is between powerful belligerents, soaring profit is guaranteed because both possess the wherewithal to sustain a protracted conflict. In contrast, smaller wars in Third World countries reduce profitability as they are less destructive. Thus, the end of the 20-year-old Afghan war in August 2021 inflicted huge losses on arms and ammunition manufacturers.
Undoubtedly, Russia is in the wrong. And the criticism thereof is justified. Nevertheless, Russian wrongs also raise a question. Why is Moscow pursuing this seemingly irreversible, hostile path? Although one-third of the answer was given by the British Defence Secretary with his comment on the 1853 Crimea War, it nevertheless leaves two-thirds unanswered, which lies in what happened in the 1810s and the 1940s.
Russia saved the entire West from being annihilated by two European scourges of mankind (Napoleon and Hitler) in successive centuries. Indeed, it crushed the bloodthirsty Napoleon’s ‘Grand Armee’ in the battles of Borodino (September 1812) and Leipzig (October 1813) much before the Duke of Wellington’s victory over a weakened French army at Waterloo in June 1815. From the Napoleonic wars to the two World Wars and from the Balkanisation of the 1990s to the present Ukraine war — all constitute intra-Europe conflicts, like ceaseless continental civil wars. And yet, the non-European world was inexorably dragged into these internecine disputes, thereby giving Europe pole position in world affairs.
So, what’s next for the Russia-Ukraine war? Is a solution possible? Or will it again drag entire Europe and the rest of the world into another Armageddon? Just hear the Europeans themselves on the “war within”, because “Europe is united” and yet “Europe is not united”. Europe is distressed because war fatigue and economic downturn have already gripped virtually every nook and corner of it. Hence, Deutsch Bank warns of the peril in borrowing from US banks and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admits that the Cold War never ended. French President Emmanuel Macron is being berated for repeatedly calling for considering Russia’s legitimate security guarantee owing to NATO expansion in Russia’s neighbourhood.
The French certainly know best, owing to the post-World War I Versailles Treaty’s monumental folly of humiliating the defeated Germany, thereby sowing the seeds of World War II. Criticism of the US came from top EU diplomat Josep Borrell: “Americans, our friend, take decisions which have economic impact on us.” The EU has also accused Washington of profiting/profiteering from the Ukraine war. A more serious matter, however, is the growing intra-Europe conflict between Serbia and Kosovo. Serbia (former Yugoslavia) was attacked by the NATO and broken into seven pieces in the 1990s. Hence, Serbia, like Russia, is smarting and eyeing revenge.
Indeed, there’s a real possibility of two simultaneous Balkan wars as the region is the ‘tinderbox’ of Europe where issues related to ethnic minorities have repeatedly triggered conflicts. Altogether, the possibility of the Russia-Ukraine conflict raising the stakes higher will only smoothen matters further for the profiteering brigade to make mega bucks from the sale of military merchandise.
