In recent months, numerous commentators in Nigeria have examined the shift in United States policy on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Some of these commentaries, while informative, have largely echoed the dominant Western narratives, focusing primarily on the Ukrainian perspective. While it is important to understand Ukraine’s position, but the principles of objective journalism and strategic analysis demand a broader lens, one that considers the motivations and perspectives of all key players in the conflict.
We cannot understand a conflict if we refuse to listen to all sides. If history has taught us anything, is it not that one- sided narratives have always led to misguided policies and suffering.
This is not how it should work. Some public intellectuals who value neutrality and balanced discourse, are concerned that some commentators fail to uphold the Nigerian tradition of non -alignment and strategic autonomy in analysing global affairs.
Historically, Nigeria and many other African nations have sought to avoid being drawn into the geopolitical rivalries of global superpowers, maintaining an independent foreign policy that serves Africa’s interest. As African nations continue to assert their place in the multipolar world, it is essential to approach international conflicts with a critical and independent mindset.
Blindly adopting Western narratives without considering alternative viewpoints undermines Africa’s ability to engage with global events in a way that serves its own interests. This should guide our approach to the Ukraine conflict, urging us to hear not only Ukraine’s narrative but also to understand Russia’s position, as well as the evolving stance of the US under President Donald Trump.
The Ukrainian conflict is a complex issue with deep historical roots, and it is imperative for African analysts and policy makers to apply the same principles of non-alignment that guided the continent during the cold war.
Instead of being drawn into the geopolitical battles of superpowers, Africa should advocate diplomatic solutions that prioritise peace, stability, and respect for all peoples. After all, external powers should not be shaping our worldview once again.
To fully understand Russia’s actions, one must go beyond simplistic labels and look at the historical and geographical context that led to the current conflict. While Western narratives frame Russia’s actions as mere expansionism, Moscow’s concerns are rooted in strategic security considerations that should not be ignored.
Ukraine and Russia share deep cultural, linguistic, and historical links. The population in the country’s eastern regions of Donetsk and Luthansk are mostly Russian-speaking and maintains close cultural ties with Russia.
This is because the post-Soviet borders were drawn arbitrarily, leaving many ethnic Russians outside Russia’s borders. The country has been complaining about the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) towards its borders.
This led Western leaders in 1990 to assure then Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not expand ‘’one inch eastward’’ beyond Germany. But since then NATO have expanded to include former Soviet republics and former Warsaw Pact nations. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO represents a red flag for Russia as it would place Western military forces on Russian doorstep.
Even then Russia’s proposal to conclude a security guarantee agreement in 2021 was rejected, which among other things, provided for the exclusion of NATO and Ukraine’s accession to the alliance.
Russia sees NATO’s military build-up in Eastern Europe including its missile defense systems in Poland and Romania as existential threat given its historical experiences with Western invasions like the Napoleon 1812 campaign and the Nazi invasion in 1941.
And the West and its allies have continued to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs culminating in their support of the 2014 Maiden Revolution which led to the overthrow of the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych.
Moscow viewed this development as an example of Western-backed regime change, aimed at turning Ukraine to an anti-Russian outpost. So for Russia, the conflict did not start in 2022 but rather in 2014, when the coup took place and the subsequent marginalisation of the Russian-speaking populations through language e restrictions and military operations against them in the Dombas region.
The Odessa massacre that saw dozens of pro-Russian activists killed in clashes with Ukrainian nationalists further fueled Russian fears that ethnic Russians were under threat.
The decision to conduct a special military operation was, in Russia view, a response to these developments and an effort to protect its compatriots in the regions. Before now Russia had tried through diplomacy to reintegrate her people in the south eastern regions, named by Kiev as ‘’separatists,’’ into Ukraine.
But Ukraine’s non-compliance with the Minsk agreements (which sought to end the Dombas war between the Russian separatists and Ukraine Armed Forces), according to the Russian president, left Russia with no choice but to recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Luthansk Peoples Republics and provide them with support.
Former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, admitted years later that the Minsk agreements served to buy time to rearm Ukraine. And this is typical of European diplomacy .
The divisions in Ukraine, exacerbated by Western influence, mirror the conflicts seen in post – colonial Africa, where external forces benefitted from internal discord. From Sudan to Anglophone Cameroun, many African countries are still grappling with the challenges of preserving ethnic and linguistic identities in states where their boundaries were not created by them.
Under the Biden administration, Washington ignored Russia and prioritised endless military aid to Ukraine, aiming to achieve what it called the ‘’strategic defeat’’ of Russia.
However, the continuation of the conflict, and the unrealistic objective of returning Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders, the heavy economic costs, and shifting geopolitical dynamics, have forced a reassessment by the new US administration of this purely military approach to resolve the conflict diplomatically.